1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of CUMBERWORTH HALF. that statute that they were put in opposition to indentures of covenant. And so it is reasonable to conclude that the words "covenant indenture" meant something more than parish indenture; all the facts of the case, too, are consistent with this supposition. As to the second point, I think that any one, reading the words as a man of common sense, would say the tenement was here meant to include keeping and feeding on the land and premises; but using the word "tenement" does not make that a tenement which was not so; and the word here is tied up by what follows," consisting of the keeping or feeding of a cow by and on the land and premises of James Haigh." WIGHTMAN, J.-I am of the same opinion on both points. Consistently with this statement, the cow might be either pasture-fed or otherwise. Order of sessions confirmed. January 20th. THE QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of PERRANZABuloe. Where an order ON appeal against an order of two justices, dated 29th of justices for removing a to B. was, on appeal, quashed generally, and A. obtained a November, 1841, removing Catherine Cocking, widow, pauper from A. from the parish of Perranzabuloe to the borough of Bodmin, both in the county of Cornwall, the appellants objected in their grounds of appeal that no evidence of the chargeability of the said Catherine Cocking to the said parish of Perranzabuloe was given before the justices who made the order; and the sessions quashed the order generally. second order for the remo val of the same pauper to B., and at the trial of the second appeal it was proved that the former order was quashed for want of a statement of A second order of justices was obtained, dated the 27th day of June, 1842, for the removal of the same chargeability in the examinations, the sessions held that the former order was on the merits, and conclusive between the parties. Held, that the sessions were wrong; for, though the former order was quashed on the merits, yet that a new state of things had arisen, which were not affected by the former order. pauper, Catherine Cocking, from the parish of Perranzabuloe, to the borough of Bodmin. The examinations stated that relief had been given to the said Catherine Cocking on several occasions, by the overseers of Bodmin, while she was resident in Perranzabuloe, and then stated chargeability to that parish. To this order of removal the appellants sent the following ground of appeal:-Because a former order of H. Willyams and W. P. Kempe, Esquires, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county of Cornwall, removing the said Catherine Cocking from the said parish of Perranzabuloe to the said borough of Bodmin, has been quashed by the Court of quarter sessions for the county of Cornwall, at the April sessions in the present year, and which order of the said Court of quarter sessions related directly to the point then and now in question between the parties to the present appeal, and is, therefore, binding and conclusive between them, so far as respects the place of the last legal settlement of the said Catherine Cocking. Notice and grounds of appeal being proved on the hearing, the appellants, in support of their appeal, put in and proved an order of sessions quashing a former order of justices for the removal of Catherine Cocking from the parish of Perranzabuloe to the borough of Bodmin. They also proved that the pauper was the party referred to in the former order, and then closed. their case; in answer to which, the respondents tendered evidence to shew that the merits were not heard at the trial of the former appeal. It was then admitted, on both sides, that the former order of the 29th of November was quashed, because the examination on which that order was founded did not contain evidence of chargeability. The sessions quashed the second order, being of opinion that the quashing of the former order was conclusive between the parties; sub VOL. I. C N. S. C. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of BULOE. 1844. ject to the opinion of this Court, whether the quash THE QUEEN ing of an order of removal, for want of a statement of Inhabitants of chargeability in the examination, was a decision on the v. Erle and C. W. Johnson, in support of the order of sessions. The sessions were of opinion that the examinations on which the first order of removal was obtained were defective, for omitting to state that the pauper was chargeable to the respondent parish at the time when the order was made. It is admitted that an order quashed for want of evidence of chargeability is not conclusive upon the parties; but in the present case, the first order was not quashed for want of evidence of chargeability, but because no evidence of chargeability was contained in the examination. It is quashed, therefore, not for defect of proof at the trial, but for the defective state of the examination. The respondents obtained a second order of removal, and the sessions held that the former order was binding and conclusive between the parishes, and that the former was a decision on the merits; and since they have come to that conclusion, being the proper judges of the question, this Court will not interfere. The justices at sessions are the proper parties to decide whether an omission in an examination becomes material or not. In Regina v. Charlbury and Walcott (a), the sessions were of opinion that the omission on the part of the respondents to state a particular fact vitiated the examination, and they quashed the order generally. And when the case was brought up for the opinion of this Court, the Judges held, that, as the sessions found that the omission was material to the settlement, this Court could not say that they were wrong. See also the case of Regina v. Evenwood and Barony (b). The case of Regina v. Kingsclere (a) was a decision to the same effect. The sessions in that case quashed not on the merits, and the Court of Queen's Bench would not give an opinion, whether the omission was or was not one that went to the merits of the settlement. [Coleridge, J.— The fact omitted there was a date, which might or might not be very material; our judgment proceeded on the ground that the sessions did hear, at all events they did not refuse to hear, evidence.] The examinations disclose one entire claim, in which chargeability is a material allegation, and on this point the sessions find there is a total omission. [Coleridge, J.-Suppose a removal on the 39th day of residence, before a settlement was gained, could you not remove afterwards? (b) That is quite like chargeability; to-day a person is not chargeable, to-morrow he is. It is a subsequently-acquired settlement.] The parties come to the sessions at great expense, prepared to dispute both facts and points of form, and the decision of the sessions ought to set the matter at rest. Greenwood, contrà, was stopped by the Court. Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We will admit all Mr. Erle asks for, that is, that the former decision was entirely on the merits; but since that trial a new state of things has arisen, and the former order cannot affect them. We think that order was not conclusive. Order of sessions quashed. (a) 3 G. & D. 186. (b) See Rex v. Willoughby, 4 A. & E. 143. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of BULOE. 1844. January 20th. THE QUEEN V. The Inhabitants of ST. PAUL'S, COVENT Where an examination stated that a unmarried, and GARDEN. ON appeal against an order of two justices for the removal of Sarah Bull, widow, from the parish of St. pauper, "whilst Luke, Chelsea, in the county of Middlesex, to the parish of St. Paul, Covent-Garden, in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: not having a child or children, lived at Spenser's Ho tel, in Bond. street, CoventGarden, for several years, as The order appealed against was made on the examinchambermaid, ation of the pauper, which was as follows:—“ The examination of Sarah Bull, at present residing at the under a general hiring, and quitted there a few months previous to her marriage: Held, that the examination was bad, as it did not shew that the pauper was unmarried at the time of workhouse of and in the parish of St. Luke, Chelsea, &c., who, upon her oath, saith, that she was lawfully married to Edward Bull, at Arundel Church, in the county of Sussex, in 1814, and who died in the year 1834. That he never did any act to gain a parochial settlement since her marriage as aforesaid, and that she such hiring." has no knowledge of his place of legal settlement. That, Semble, that "Spenser's whilst unmarried, and not having a child or children, she Hotel, Covent-lived at Spenser's Hotel, in Bow-street, in the parish of not a sufficient St. Paul, Covent-Garden, in the county of Middlesex, for designation of several years as chambermaid under a general hiring, and quitted there a few months previously to her marriage as aforesaid; that she hath acquired no subsequent settlement, and that she is now chargeable to the said parish of St. Luke, Chelsea." Garden," was the master under whom the pauper served. Among the grounds of appeal were the following:"That the examination upon which the said order was made does not contain any sufficient or legal evidence of a settlement gained in our said parish of St. Paul by the said Sarah Bull; that the examination does not shew that the said S. Bull was at any time settled in our said |