Page images
PDF
EPUB

c. 31.

11 & 12 VICT. ciency and effect of the statement of the grounds of removal and of appeal, and of the notice of chargeability, and of the copy or counterpart of the order of removal sent to the appellant parish, as upon the amending or refusing to amend the order of removal as aforesaid or the statement of grounds of removal or appeal, shall be final, and shall not be liable to be reviewed in any court, by means of a writ of certiorari or mandamus, or otherwise."

Abandonment

of orders of removal.

As to payment of costs on abandonment.

No appeal if notice be not

given within a

notice of

chargeability.

66

Sect. 8. And be it enacted, that in any case in which an order shall have been made for the removal of any poor person, and a copy or counterpart thereof sent as by law required, it shall and may be lawful for the overseers or guardians of the parish who shall have obtained such order of removal, whether any notice of appeal against such order shall or shall not have been given, and whether any appeal shall have been entered or not, to abandon such order by notice in writing under the hands of such overseers or guardians, or any three or more of such guardians, to be sent by post or delivered to the overseers or guardians as aforesaid of the parish to which such person is by the said order directed to be removed; and thereupon the said order, and all proceedings consequent thereon, shall become and be null and void to all intents and purposes as if the same had not been made, and shall not be in any way given in evidence in case any other order of removal of the same person shall be obtained: provided always, that in all cases of such abandonment the overseers or guardians of the parish so abandoning shall pay to the overseers or guardians of the parish to which such person is by the said order directed to be removed the costs which the said last-mentioned overseers or guardians shall have incurred by reason of such order, and of all subsequent proceedings thereon, which costs the proper officer of the court before whom any such appeal (if it had not been abandoned) might have been brought shall and he is hereby required, upon application, to tax and ascertain at any time, whether the court shall be sitting or not, upon production to him of such notice of abandonment, and upon proof to him that such reasonable notice of taxation, together with a copy of the bill of costs, has been given to the overseers or guardians abandoning such order as the distance between the parishes shall in his judgment require, and thereupon the sum allowed for costs, including the usual costs of taxation, which such officer is hereby empowered to charge and receive, shall be indorsed upon the said notice of abandonment, and the said notice so indorsed shall be filed among the records of the said court; and if the said costs so allowed be not paid within ten days after such costs shall have been lawfully demanded, the amount thereof may be recovered from such last-mentioned overseers or guardians in the same manner as any penalties or forfeitures are recoverable under the said act passed in the session of Parliament holden in the fourth and fifth years of the reign of King William the Fourth."

Sect. 9. "And be it enacted, that no appeal shall be allowed against any order of removal if notice of such appeal be not given as required by certain time after law, within the space of twenty-one days after the notice of chargeability and statement of the grounds of removal shall have been sent by the overseers or guardians of the removing parish to the overseers or guardians of the parish to which such order shall be directed, unless within such period of twenty-one days a copy of the depositions shall have been applied for as aforesaid by the last-mentioned overseers or guardians, in which case a further period of fourteen days after the sending of such copy shall be allowed for the giving of such notice of appeal; but in such case no poor person shall be removed under such order of removal until the expiration of such further period of fourteen days."

Service of sus

pended orders of

removal and

Sect. 10. "And be it enacted, that all the provisions which relate to the sending and service of copies of orders of removal shall apply to such orders consequent orders when suspended, and to all orders consequent upon such suspension, and to all copies of charges arising thereon, and demands of payment of such charges."

thereon.

c. 31.

Sect. 11. "And be it enacted, that the said act passed in the session of 11 & 12 VICT. Parliament holden in the fourth and fifth years of the reign of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled An Act for the Amendment 4 & 5 Will. 4, and better Administration of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and c. 76, and all' Wales,' and all acts to amend and extend the same, and the present act, acts amending shall (except so far as the provisions of any former act are altered, the same, to be amended, or repealed by any subsequent act,) be construed as one act." this act. Sect. 12. "And be it enacted, that this act shall commence and take Commencement effect on the first day of August one thousand eight hundred and forty- of act. eight."

Bastard (see "Bastardy," ante, p. 78.)

Certiorari.

BY the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 6, it is provided" that no objection on account of any omission or mistake in an order of removal brought up upon a return to a writ of certiorari shall be allowed unless such omission or mistake shall have been specified in the rule for issuing such writ of certiorari."

construed with

Chargeability.

NOTICE of chargeability under the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 79, was signed Notice of by three persons describing themselves “ of the parish need not state overseers of the chargeability poor of M." Held, that those who had signed the notice might be presumed that it was signed to be a majority of the parish officers, and as such, competent to sign, by a majority of the parish without stating themselves to be a majority: Lord Denman, C. J. It officers. is quite clear to me that this is a question of fact. I think that as those that have signed this notice might be a majority of the parish officers of Melksham, we are bound to presume that they are such, and that this notice therefore is sufficient." (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Colern, 3 New Sess. Cas. 143; 17 L. J. 121, M. C.; also R. v. Gomersall, 3 New Sess. Cas. 284; 17 L. J. 163, M. C.)

Complaint.

WHERE the caption of an examination only stated that it was taken on Defective caption. the complaint of the overseers touching the place of residence, chargeability, and last place of legal settlement of the pauper: Held, insufficient: Lord Denman, C. J. "The objection to the caption is, that it purports to be taken on the complaint touching chargeability, not saying 'actually chargeable;' this was wrongly overruled by the sessions.' (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Gomersall, 3 New Sess. Cas. 284; 17 L. J. 163, M. C.; 3 New Mag. Cas. 37.)

وو

The caption of examinations ought to state, not only that they were Same. taken upon the complaint of the overseers, but also the subject-matter of the complaint. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Sheffield, 3 New Sess. Cas. 282; 3 New Mag. Cas. 37.)

See also the cases of Reg. v. The Inhabitants of East Stonehouse, 17 L. J. 166, M. C.; 3 New Mag. Cas. 37; Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Addingham, 17 L. J. 175, M.C.; 3 New Sess. Cas. 38; Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Andrews, Plymouth, 3 New Mag. Cas. 57; Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Ashwell, 3 New Sess. Cas. 278.

The power to amend conferred by sect. 6 of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, renders it unnecessary further to refer to the above cases.

U

Power to amend.

When not neces-
sary to negative
emancipation
in a derivative
settlement.

Evidence of the

a former order of removal.

Costs.

See "Mandamus," post.

Costs of copy of depositions, see 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 3, ante.

of amendment or post-}

ponement of appeal.
of frivolous or vexatious
grounds of removal or
appeal

of abandoned order of re-
moval

}

see 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 4, ante.

see 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 5, ante.

see 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 8, ante.

Depositions.

THE 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31 (ante, p. 142), repeals the enactment of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, providing for the sending of a copy of the examinations upon which an order of removal has been made, and in lieu thereof contains certain provisions for the furnishing of a copy of the depositions to the parties on whom the order is made on request, &c.

Emancipation.

THE examinations to support the order of removal stated that the pauper's husband had resided with his father in the appellant parish (where the father had a settlement) as part of his family; that the father removed to Chelsea (where he died) while the son was under twenty-one, but they did not expressly state that the son was unemancipated. Held, that the emancipation of the son was not to be presumed, and need not be negatived, and that therefore the examinations were sufficient. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Hammersmith, 3 New Sess. Cas. 84; 17 L. J. 47, M. C.)

Evidence.

ON an appeal against an order of removal, dated May, 1845, for the due execution of removal of two paupers from S. to D., the respondents relied upon a former order, dated June, 1826, which was not appealed against, for the removal of the father of the paupers from S. to D. The order of 1826 was set out in the examination of a person who was at that time assistant overseer of S., and who also stated in his examination that when the order was made he employed Thomas Green to execute the order, and that after Green returned from removing the pauper, he signed the following indorsement on the order: "Delivered to Mr. Woolley, overseer of Dukinfield, June 23, 1826, by Thomas Green;" that Green was dead, and that the signature was Green's handwriting. The appellants objected in their grounds of appeal that there was no legal evidence of the removal and conveyance of the pauper under the order of 1826. The appellants also relied upon an order, dated April, 1844, for the removal of the same pauper from S. to D., and an appeal against that order, heard at the following October sessions, when the order was quashed, and the order of court was, "It is ordered by this court, by consent, &c., that the said recited order shall be and is hereby repealed and made void by reason of the informality and of the insufficiency of the examinations on which the said recited order was made." The sessions were of opinion that the examinations contained sufficient evidence of the execution of the order of 1826; that the quashing of the order of 1844 was not conclusive as to the settlement of the paupers, and

that the indorsement on the order of 1826 was admissible in evidence. Upon this, it was held, first, that the examinations did disclose some evidence to raise a presumption that the order of 1826 had been duly executed, and that the magistrates are to decide upon the weight it is entitled to. Secondly, that the sessions had the right to decide whether It is for the the quashing of the order of 1844 was conclusive or not, and this court sessions to decide would not interfere. Thirdly, that if the indorsement on the order of 1826 quashing of a was such as was required and made in the usual and regular discharge former order was of the duty of removal, it would be admissible in evidence without the indorsement. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Dukinfield, 3 New Sess. Cas. Admissibility of 126; 17 L. J. 113, M. C.)

whether the

conclusive or not.

indorsement upon an order

Evidence of the

A pauper was removed on an alleged settlement of her husband by of removal. apprenticeship from M. to T., both in the county of Lancaster. T. ap-wance of a pealed, and, on the trial of the appeal, an indenture of apprenticeship parish indenture executed by the master, and allowed by two justices of the county of of apprenticeship York, was produced out of the chest of the parish in the county of York, by justices. out of which the husband had been bound into T., and it was proved that he served his master as an apprentice there for three years, but no indenture executed by the parish officers and allowed by the justices pursuant to stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, was proved. The sessions held that there was not sufficient evidence to raise a presumption of the allowance of the indenture by justices of the county of Lancaster, and quashed the order. Held, by the Queen's Bench, that they could not interfere with the decision of the sessions. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Macclesfield, 3 New Sess. Cas. 70.)

removal to be

See sect. 3 of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31. ante, providing that on the trial No order of of any appeal no order of removal shall be quashed or set aside, wholly quashed on the or in part, on the ground that the depositions do not furnish sufficient ground of evidence to support, or that any matter therein contained or omitted defective raises an objection to the order or grounds of removal.

examinations.

Examinations.

See "Complaint," ante, p. 145.

THE late statute of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, ante, p. 142, having entirely altered the practice in reference to the sending of copies of the examinations, and rendered the insufficiency of the evidence contained in them, or the fact of there being any matter contained in or omitted therefrom, no ground for quashing an order of removal, it will be unnecessary to give the cases which have been decided upon the law as it formerly stood at any great length.

examination

In Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Michael's, Coventry, 3 New Sess. Cas. Sufficiency of 260; 3 New Mag. Cas. 38, it was held, that it was not necessary that each before the examination on which an order of removal was founded should contain a operation of the separate heading, and that it was sufficient if the heading of the first contained the names of all the witnesses, and the statement of each witness referred to such heading.

11 & 12 Vict. c. 31.

In Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Stainforth, 3 New Sess. Cas. 53; 17 L. J. Same. 75, M. Č. the examinations in support of an order of removal set out an indenture of apprenticeship. The indenture recited an order of justices for the binding, and the allowance at the foot of it was signed "J. N. C. and A. L., justices for the riding aforesaid" (being the same names as those of the justices who were recited as having made the order for the binding); but the order for binding was not set out, nor any statement made of a search for it. Held, first, that the examinations were sufficient, as the recital in the indenture, certified by the allowance of the justices, was primary evidence of the order for binding: secondly, that the allowance was valid, without stating the justices to have been acting "in" the riding,

Sufficiency of examinations prior to the

inasmuch as the approval of the binding being an act personal to the justices who make an order for it, the place where the allowance is signed is not material.

In Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Pancras, 3 New Sess. Cas. 186; 3 New Mag. Cas. 28; 17 L. J. 123, M. C. the examination of a pauper set i1 & 12 Vict. c. 31. out a settlement alleged to have been gained by her husband in P. by renting a tenement, and stated that he was assessed to and paid the poorrates of P. in respect of such tenement for a whole year, during part of 1840 and 1841, the receipts for which, given by the parish collector, were produced and annexed to the examination. The vestry clerk of P. stated in his examination that he produced the rate-books for that parish for the years 1840 and 1841. On appeal by P. it was objected that the examination did not disclose any legal evidence that the husband of the pauper was assessed to the poor-rate in respect to such tenement. Held (dubitante Coleridge, J.), that inasmuch as it appeared from the examination that the rate-books of the appellant parish were produced before the removing justices, and that they afterwards proceeded to make the order, it must be presumed that they inspected the rate-books and were satisfied they contained legal evidence of the assessment, and that the examinations were therefore sufficient. Semble, per Erle, J., that in cases where it becomes necessary to send a copy or extract of a rate-book produced before the removing justices in support of a settlement, it is sufficient to send a copy of the title of the rate, with an extract of the particular assessment required.

11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 2.

Sect. 4.

The party who succeeds upon a rule for a mandamus to

Grounds of Appeal (see "Notice and Grounds of
Appeal," post.)

Grounds of Removal.

BY the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31 (An Act to amend the Procedure in respect of Orders for the Removal of the Poor in England and Wales and Appeals therefrom), the old practice of sending with the copy order of removal and notice of chargeability, a copy also of the examinations, is altered, and by the 2nd section of the foregoing statute it is enacted, "that instead thereof" (copy of the examinations) "such notice shall be accompanied by a statement in writing, under the hands of such overseers or such guardians, or any three or more of such guardians, setting forth the grounds of such removal, including the particulars of the settlement or settlements relied upon in support thereof: provided always, that on the hearing of any appeal against any order of removal, it shall not be lawful for the respondents to go into or give evidence of any other grounds of removal than those set forth in such statement."

By sect. 4, the quarter sessions are enabled to amend, in certain cases, defective grounds of removal, upon terms; and by sect. 5 the sessions are empowered to inflict costs upon parties for including frivolous or vexatious grounds of removal.-(See the statute, ante, p. 142.)

Guardians (see "Overseers and Parish Officers.”)
Lunatic Poor (see "Lunatics," ante, p. 123.)

Mandamus-Costs.

WHERE a party succeeds in a court below upon an objection which turns out to be ill-founded, and resists an application for a mandamus to correct the error by showing cause against it, the general and more con

« PreviousContinue »