NEW SESSIONS CASES. Court of Queen's Bench. HILARY TERM, 1844. THE QUEEN V. Lord GODOLPHIN and Another. THIS was a motion for a mandamus to compel the defendants, two of the justices of Cambridgeshire, to sign and allow a rate, or assessment, made for the relief of the poor of the parish of Cottenham on the 8th of December last. From the affidavits it appeared, that there were two overseers and two churchwardens in the parish; but that not the churchwardens had never been sworn, and had already expended 50l. in the relief of the poor, and had Gunning, in support of the motion.-The justices acted improperly in refusing to sign this rate. The churchwardens, not having been sworn in, were not, properly speaking, churchwardens at all, and could do no act in VOL. I. B N. S. C. 1844. THE QUEEN v. GODOLPHIN. the execution of their office (a). In point of fact, no churchwardens have been sworn in in this parish for six years. But if the rate produced to the justices was good on the face of it, they had no discretion in the matter, Regina v. Earl of Yarborough (b), the allowing and signing a rate being not a judicial, but merely a ministerial act: Rex v. The Justices of Dorchester (c). is nothing on the face of this rate to show that it has not been regularly made; and, if it be bad, the parties aggrieved may appeal against it afterwards. WILLIAMS, J.-Take a rule (d). (a) By the 118th canon," the office of all churchwardens and sidesmen shall be reputed ever hereafter to continue until the new churchwardens that shall succeed to them be sworn; which shall be the first week after Easter, or some week following, according to the direction of the ordinary," &c. 4 Burn's Eccl. There Law, App. 11; 2 Gibson's Codex (b) 12 A. & E.416 ; 3 P. & D. 491. (c) 1 Str. 393. (d) Absolute in the first instance. See Rex v. Edlaston (Churchwardens, &c.), 1 N. & P. 20. In the Matter of JONES. 1844. January 13th. IN this case, William Jones, a prisoner in Stafford Gaol, The examina tion into a com 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s.3, must be oath. had been brought up by a writ of habeas corpus before plaint under the the Court of Queen's Bench, to be discharged, on the ground that the conviction on which his commitment had taken upon been made was bad. The prisoner had been convicted, under the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, by one of the justices stating that of Staffordshire, for absenting himself from his master's service. The conviction was as follows: Therefore, a conviction "whereas com- on oath ; and whereas I have duly examined the proofs and allegations of both the said of the said com plaint, (not stating upon oath), and do adjudge" &c., was held, bad. "County of Stafford. 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, miner, that William Jones, late of" &c., "hath parties touchcontracted with the said James Dabbs, and Samuel ing the matter Dabbs, his partner, to serve them until" &c., "and hath entered into such service, and absented himself from the same service," &c. "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 William Jones of the said offence, in pursuance of the statute in that case made and provided. These are therefore to command you," &c. Bodkin now moved that the prisoner might be discharged. The statute 4 Geo. 4, c. 34 (a), under which the prisoner was convicted, was passed to extend the (a) The 5th section enacts, and conclusive." See, as to the "that every order or determina- effect of these words, Rex v. tion of such justice or justices, Terret, 2T. R. 734; Rex v. Jukes, made under this act, shall be final 8 T. R. 544. 1844. In re JONES. powers of (amongst other acts) the 20 Geo. 2, c. 19, by which the certiorari is taken away, and there is no appeal. The instrument, therefore, should clearly be good on the face of it; but it does not appear here that the evidence which the magistrate received on hearing the case was taken on oath. V. Lee, contrà, was here called upon by the Court.On referring to the conviction, it does appear that the evidence was taken on oath. The words, "I have duly examined" must mean "examined on oath." And "the proofs and allegations" mean the proofs and allegations of Dabbs, who is stated to have deposed on oath. [Williams, J.—The first is preliminary; then comes the part which refers to hearing the merits, and that should appear to have been on oath.] The question is, whether the former part cannot be called in aid of the latter, and both read together. WILLIAMS, J.-I do not think that construction would do, nor do I think that this instrument is to be construed differently from her instruments. No violence must be done in the construction of it. Here a primâ facie case was made out on oath before the magistrate for him to try, and the hearing it afterwards should be stated to have been on oath also. The prisoner must be discharged. The prisoner was discharged. 1844. THE QUEEN V. The Inhabitants of CRANBROOK. January 17th. ON appeal against an order of two justices, dated the The pauper 29th July, 1841, for the removal of Richard Ellis and Ann his wife, and their seven children, from the parish of Cranbrook, in the county of Kent, to the parish of Hawkhurst, in the same county, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case : rented and oc cupied a tene the yearly rent of 18., from 1838, to April, 1841;during the ment of D., at Christmas, whole of which time he under- 51. 48. a year. by a cheque, On the 21st of December, 1838, the pauper, Richard Ellis, entered into an agreement with Samuel Dobell, as agent to Thomas Smith, for renting a tenement in the parish of Cranbrook, consisting of a house in two dwellings, with some pieces of land and other premises, at the rent of 187. a year, under the following memorandum of agreement, which was duly stamped and put in making togeevidence : Ri "Memorandum, made this 21st day of December, 1838, of an agreement between S. Dobell of Cranbrook, as agent for Mr. T. Smith, of London, tailor, and chard Ellis, of Cranbrook, cooper.. That, from and after the 25th day of December, 1838, those two tenements situate at Milkhouse-street, with one piece of meadow land, one piece of arable, a plat and pond, with the gardens, one lodge, one shed, and one yard, now occupied by the said Richard Ellis and his under-tenant West, shall be at the rate of 187. a year, payable halfyearly." [Then followed agreements as to terms tenancy not material.] of to D.; and also paid him 31. 2s. 6d.; ther the sum of 81. 68. 6d. thereon for more than forty days afterwards. Held, that the Court would not infer from the facts stated that the last payment of 51. 48. by W. was a payment on account of the first year's rent, so as to make up the sum of 107. of rent actually paid in one year, required by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 57, to enable the pauper to gain a settlement by payment of rates, (the sessions not having expressly found that that payment was to be so appropriated). |