Cal. 77; 74 Ia. 670; 73 id. 649; 84 Ala: 88; 78 Ga. 641; but in certain forms of action the burden may by the pleadings be shifted to the defendant. In criminal cases, on the twofold ground that a prosecutor must prove every fact necessary to substantiate his charge against a prisoner, and that the law will presume innocence in the absence of con- vincing evidence to the contrary, the bur- den of proof, unless shifted by legislative interference, will fall, in criminal proceed- ings, on the prosecuting party, though in order to convict he must necessarily have recourse to negative evidence; 1 Tayl. Ev. 8th ed. §§ 118, 871; 12 Wheat. 460. The burden of proof is throughout on the gov- ernment, to make out the whole case; and when a prima facie case is established, the burden of proof is not thereby shifted up- on the defendant, and he is not bound to restore himself to that presumption of in- nocence in which he was at the commence- ment of the trial; 1 B. & H. Lead. Cr. Cas. 352; 153 Mich. 63; 62 Ia. 150; 73 Ala. 366; 48 Mich. 31. See 9 Metc. 93: 2 Gratt. 594; 1 Wright, Ohio 20; 5 Yerg. 340; 16 Miss. 401; but as every man is presumed to be sane till the contrary is shown, the burden of establishing the defence of insanity rests upon the defendant; Whart. Cr. Ev. 9th ed. § 336; Bailey, Onus Prob. 148; 4 Cra. C. C. 514; 7 Gray 583; the Pomeroy case in Massachusetts before Gray, J., reported in Whart. Hom. 753, Append.; 20 Cal. 518; 20 Gratt. 860; 3 C. & Κ. 138: 76 Pa. 414; 53 Mo. 267; 26 Ark. 332; 47 Cal. 134; contra, 63 Ala. 307; s. c. 35 Am. Rep. 30, and note; 6 Tex. App. 490; 66 Ind. 94; 16 N. Y. 58; 75 N. Y. 159; 88 N. Y. 81; 56 Miss. 269; 17 Mich. 8; 3 Heisk. 348; 40 III. 352. In criminal cases, where the defence of insanity is interposed. the question of the burden of proof becomes somewhat com- plex, and there has resulted some confu- sion from the tendency of courts to deal with the subject from a restricted point of view. It is technically true as stated that the burden is primarily upon the defend- ant because of the presumption of sanity. It has, however, been held, in many cases, that, after proof casting doubt upon the sanity of the prisoner, the burden is shifted to the prosecution, which, after all, must show an offence committed as charged and by a person fully responsible for his acts. The true rule probably is that the prose- cution may rest on the presumption of sanity, without evidence, until the de- fence has seriously challenged it, and then upon the whole evidence the burden re- mains upon the prosecution to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, to the benefit of which the prisoner is entitled on this as on every other point; 160 U. S. 469, where a large number of cases are cited in argument. See also 3 W. & B. Med. Jur. 509, and cases cited in notes, and Guiteau's Case, 10 Fed. Rep. 161. BUREAU (Fr.). A place where busi- dess is transacted. In the classification of the ministerial officers of government, and the distribution of duties among them. a bureau is understood to be a division of one of the great departments of which the secre taries or chief officers constitute the cabinet.