1844. GARRATT ບ. BABINGTON. an opportunity to apply to the Court for a new inquiry or trial, or a Judge of any of the said Courts shall think fit to order that judgment or execution shall be stayed till a day to be named in such order." But if the plaintiff does issue execution before the four days of the next, or then Term, allowed for moving new trials, he does so at his own risk, and defendant may move to set aside all the proceedings, even although he has not made any application to the sheriff for a certificate to stay the judgment and execution, under the above section, Johnson v. Beale (a), Pyke v. Glendinning (b), Baddley v. Oliver (c). For the provisions of the 1 Wm. 4, c. 7, s. 4, are extended to proceedings before the sheriff under the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 42. (d) WILLIAMS, J.-I confess that the analogy between the motion for entering this suggestion, and one for a new trial, appears to me very strong; and as the defendant has come within the four days, which would be sufficient for a new trial, I think he is entitled to make this rule absolute. A warrant of BODKIN moved on the return to a writ of habeas commitment, under the 4 corpus being read, that William Jones, William Fairley, Geo. 4, c. 34, and Thomas Lewis, the parties in whose behalf it issued, s. 3, stated, that A. B., a "miner" contracted to serve Messrs. D. & Co., but omitted to state "in the employment of a miner:" Held, bad. A warrant of commitment which states, "whereas complaint hath been made unto me, &c., upon the oath of," &c. "And whereas, &c., I have duly examined the proofs and allegations of both the said parties, &c., and do adjudge the said complaint to be true," &c., without stating that the examination was upon oath, is bad; and the prior allegation of the complaint being upon oath, cannot be called in aid to cure the defect. 1844. REGINA v. LEWIS should be discharged out of custody. The return was made by the Governor of the House of Correction, for the county of Stafford, and stated that the above named parties were in his custody by virtue of three several warrants of and Others. commitment under the hands and seals of two justices of the peace for the county of Stafford, which he set forth in the return. They were the same, in the cases of William Jones and William Fairley, as the following, in the case of Thomas Lewis, with the exception of the words enclosed within brackets [ "County of Stafford. ]. "To all constables and other peace officers of the county of Stafford, whom the execution hereof may concern, and to the keeper of the House of Correction at Stafford in the said county: Whereas complaint hath been made unto me, one of her Majesty's justices of the peace, in and for the said county, upon the oath of James Dabbs, of the parish of Wednesbury, in the said county, miner, that Thomas Lewis, late of the Foreign of Walsall, in the said county, miner, hath contracted with the said James Dabbs and Samuel Dabbs his partner, to serve them [in the employment of a miner] until he shall have given to or received from his said masters one fortnight's notice to quit and leave his said masters' service, and until such notice shall have fully expired, and hath entered into such service and absented himself from the same service in the county aforesaid, without his said masters' consent, before his said contract was completed: And whereas, in pursuance of the statute, in that case made and provided, I have duly examined the proofs and allegations of both the said parties, touching the matter of the said complaint, and upon due consideration had thereof, have adjudged and determined and do hereby adjudge and determine the said complaint to be true. And I do therefore convict the said Thomas Lewis of the said offence in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided. These are, therefore, to command you, the said constable, forthwith to convey the said Thomas Lewis, to 1844. REGINA v. LEWIS the said House of Correction, and deliver him to the said keeper thereof, together with this warrant: And you the said keeper are hereby required to receive the said Thomas and Others. Lewis into your custody in the said House of Correction, there to remain and be held to hard labour one calendar month from the date hereof, and for so doing this shall be your sufficient warrant. Given under my hand and seal, the 23rd of December, 1843. JOHN FOSTER, (L. 8.)" These convictions were under the 3rd section of the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34; and it was objected by the prisoner's counsel, that the warrants in the cases of William Jones and William Fairley were insufficient, inasmuch as there was nothing by which it appeared on the face of the warrants, that the contracts into which they had respectively entered, were contracts in the relation of master and servant, between the prisoners and Messrs. Dabbs in one of the specified occupations in that section; and, consequently, no offence against the statute appeared. F. V. Lee, who appeared for the Crown, admitted that he had no answer to this objection, and Jones and Fairley were accordingly ordered to be discharged. Bodkin then proceeded to argue the case of the remaining prisoner Lewis. The warrant in this case, he contended, was also bad; as it did not appear that the examination stated in the warrant, and on which the conviction took place, was upon oath. WILLIAMS, J.-This seems a valid objection. (He called upon F. V. Lee submitted that that portion of the warrant which stated the examination might be read as a continuation of the first paragraph, "Whereas complaint hath been made unto me, &c., upon the oath of, &c.," by which it would 1844. REGINA sufficiently appear that the examination thus spoken of, was the complaint of the said James Dabbs; and indeed the words "I have duly examined, &c., touching the matter of the said complaint, &c.," could only refer to the said and Others. complaint upon oath, as none other had been mentioned. WILLIAMS, J.-I do not think that the construction contended for, can be put upon this warrant. I do not say, there is any peculiar rule to construe this differently from any other document. It is to be read fairly with reference to the language used. And in this view the complaint and the examination might be perfectly distinct, and for all that appears, the latter might not be upon oath. It should be clearly stated that the hearing before the justices is upon oath. I therefore think this warrant insufficient, and this prisoner also must be discharged. The prisoners discharged. v. LEWIS Ex parte ORMROD. WHIGHAM moved for a habeas corpus to be directed A. contracted to the keeper of the House of Correction at Preston, county Lancaster, to bring up the body of Eli Ormrod, who was in his custody under the following warrant of commitment. "Lancashire, to wit. to serve H. & Co., who were calico printers, as a "designer," for a term of years: Held, that this was an employment within the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3. 34 The warrant of committal "To the constables of the township of Blackburn, in the said county of Lancaster, and to the governor of the House of Correction, in Preston, in the said county of Lancaster. Herewith we send you the body of Eli Ormrod, who was this day brought before us, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county, being charged upon "as a designthe oath of Robert Hargraves, of New Accrington, in the whilst he was in such service and in the exe stated that A. serve H. & Co. contracted to er," and that cution of the said contract he was guilty of, &c.: Held, that it was not necessary to state under which of the various classes of employment enumerated in the 3rd section, that of a "designer" came; and that it was sufficient, if the Court should be of opinion that a "designer" was a service or employment within that section. 1844. Ex parte ORMROD. county of Lancaster, calico printer, for that the said Eli Ormrod did, on the 15th day of September, 1842, at New Accrington aforesaid, contract with the said Robert Hargreaves and John Hargreaves, the Younger, Jonathan Hargreaves and John Hargreaves, the Elder, his partner, to serve him as a designer, for the term of five years, from the 2nd day of September, 1842, and that the said Eli Ormrod having entered upon such service, accordingly afterwards and whilst he was in such service, to wit, on the 19th day of December instant, at New Accrington aforesaid, and on other days and times, was, in the execution of the said contract and otherwise respecting the same, guilty of divers miscarriages, misdemeanors, misconduct, and ill behaviour, and particularly was then and there guilty of certain misconduct, by then and there unlawfully copying and embezzling certain patterns used in calico printing, and burning or otherwise destroying certain other patterns of the description aforesaid, the property of his said masters against the form of the statute in such case made: And we the said justices, have convicted the said Eli Ormrod of the said offence, and adjudged him to be committed to the said House of Correction, in Preston aforesaid, for the period of three months, and during such time to be kept to hard labour according to the form of the said statute; these are therefore, in her Majesty's name, to require and command you the said constable forthwith to convey the said Eli Ormrod to the said House of Correction in Preston aforesaid, and him there safely deliver to the keeper or governor thereof, and you, the said governor of the said prison, are hereby required and commanded to receive the said Eli Ormrod into your said prison, and him there safely keep to hard labour for the period of three months. Herein fail not. Given under our hands and seals, the 21st day of December, 1843. " HENRY BROCK HOLLINSHEAD." The affidavit in support of the motion was sworn by Eli |