1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of and the question is, whether the last examination is to be taken as connected with the first, or as standing alone. I think it stands alone, and that therefore there is nothing to connect it with the same justices, or with two justices of the county. It is true the names and dates are the same, but I think that we ought not to be left to presume any thing as to parties having authority to administer an oath. PATTESON, J.-I think we must suppose these to be true copies of the original examinations. It has been contended that the jurat may be omitted. Suppose it was. The first examination would appear from the heading to be by two justices, but the second would shew nothing of the sort, and you cannot leave out the heading of the examination of Sarah Sutton, as that is the only place in which the fact of these persons being justices appears. Then, supposing these to be true copies, could Patience Randall be indicted for perjury upon them? I think not. If we allowed this, we should be asked to allow two affidavits upon the same sheet of paper, one purporting to be sworn before " A. B., a commissioner" &c., and the other before " A. B.," leaving out that statement. I do not know how far we might be called upon to go. We cannot refer one document to another, when there may be no connexion between them. WILLIAMS, J.-I was at first struck by the remark of Mr. Whitmore, that a copy of the evidence only was necessary; but the case expressly sets aside that point. The way in which the heading of the examinations is stated shews that they were sent in toto. The first is curiously set out; but the second repudiates a competent foundation for a charge of perjury, as there is no reference in it to the persons mentioned in the first, nor any sufficient statement of the qualification of the 1844. parties taking the second. If the headings were omit- THE QUEEN ted, see what would be the nakedness and destitution. of the case. COLERIDGE J.-I have come with reluctance to the same conclusion, but I think it is the only one at which we could arrive with safety. The appellants must presume that a correct copy of the examination is sent them, and take their objections accordingly. I do not quite agree with Mr. Beadon, that we are to construe examinations as strictly as orders formerly, for magistrates are to judge of the meaning of words in examinations, and if they were satisfied, we should not question their decision; still, as to all that gives the magistrates jurisdiction, I think the rule is well applied; it ought to be distinctly stated, so as unequivocally to shew jurisdiction. Now, taking one examination here, it clearly does not. Then, is it to be connected with the other? It is contended that it may be, because they are upon the same sheet of paper, and there are the same date, names, and peculiarity of signature, and that it would be hard to hold otherwise. But, as my Brother Patteson says, where are we to stop? Suppose the handwriting of the two jurats was the same, would that be sufficient? I think we ought not to allow the fact of jurisdiction to be left to be supplied by parol evidence or external circumstances. It is better to make a rule that magistrates should be strictly regular; and if so, all these discussions will be avoided. Orders of sessions confirmed. V. Inhabitants of 1844. May 29th. THE QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of FARTHINGHOE. A certificate of ON appeal against an order of two justices of Oxford chargeability under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 57, s. 17, is required to be signed by the presiding chairman of the board of guardians, and sealed with their seal, and counter-signed by their clerk or person acting as their clerk. A ground of appeal against an order of removal objected, "that it did not appear by the examinations cate was sige d shire, dated March 31st, 1843, for the removal of William Whitmill, Mary his wife, and their three children, from the township of North Newington, in the county of Oxford, to the township of Farthinghoe, in the county of Northampton, the sessions confirmed the order of removal, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case. The evidence and examinations on which the original order was made, so far as are material to this case, were as follow: William Whitmill, the pauper, said, "For twelve weeks past, I and my wife and family have been in the that the certifi workhouse of the Banbury Union. Before that time, I was residing in the township of North Newington, in the said county of Oxford. I have heard the certificate now produced read by Mr. George Moore, clerk to the guardians of the Banbury Union, and I am the same William Whitmill therein mentioned." and sealed, as required by the statute, by the presiding chairman." Held, (Coleridge, J., dissentiente), that this ground, though informally stated, was sufficient to let the appellants into the objection, that there was no statement of the certificate Certificate of chargeability, Banbury Union, weekly meeting, the 30th day of March, 1843:-"The guardians of the poor of the Banbury Union, in the counties of Oxon, Northampton, Gloucester, and Warwick, do hereby certify, that William Whitmill and Mary his being sealed, as wife, and their three children, George, Hannah, and required by the Elizabeth, now residing at the workhouse of the said with the seal of union, in the township of Nesthrop, in the county of Oxon, are now, and have been for the space of twelve weeks past, chargeable to the township of North Newington, in the county of Oxon, and within the union aforesaid. Given under the seal of the board of guardians of the Banbury Union aforesaid, at a meeting statute, i. e. the board of guardians. of the guardians aforesaid, held on the day and year aforesaid. Henry Robert Brayne, Presiding Chairman (L. s.) "G. Moore, Clerk to the board of guardians of the Banbury Union." G. Moore said, "I was present at a meeting of the guardians of the poor of the Banbury Union, in the counties of Oxon, Northampton, Gloucester, and Warwick, held at the workhouse of the said union, and did see H. R. Brayne, the presiding chairman of the said meeting, sign the above-written certificate; I did also, at the said meeting, as the clerk to the board of guardians of the said union, countersign the said certificate; the names 'Henry Robert Brayne' and 'George Moore' set and subscribed to the said certificate are of the proper handwriting of the said H. R. Brayne, and of me, this deponent, respectively." The material grounds of appeal were: 1. "That it does not appear by any legal evidence that the certificate of chargeability, dated the 30th day of March, 1843, and upon which the said order was made, was signed and sealed, as required by the statute in that case made and provided, by the presiding chairman of the board of guardians of the Banbury Union, or of a district board." 2. "That the order of removal was made without any legal evidence that the said William Whitmill, with his wife and family, were, at the date of the same, actually chargeable to the township of North Newington, and without any proof that they were then inhabiting in the said township." Upon the hearing of the appeal, and after the examinations and grounds of appeal had been read, it was objected by the respondents that the first ground of appeal was bad, inasmuch as the statute does not require the certificate of chargeability to be sealed by the pre VOL. I. S N. S. C. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of siding chairman; but the sessions held that the ground of appeal was sufficient. The appellants then objected that no proof was contained in the above examinations and certificate of chargeability, that the certificate was sealed as required by the statute. These objections were overruled by the sessions, and, after hearing evidence in support of a settlement, alleged in a subsequent ground of appeal to have been gained by the pauper in the respondent township, the order of removal was confirmed, subject to a case for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon the above objections; and the question for the opinion of the Court is, whether, upon such objections, the order of removal should have been confirmed or quashed. Keating, in support of the order of sessions.-The stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 57, s. 17 (a), requires the certificate (a) By the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 57, s. 17, it is enacted, "That, whenever a board of guardians is empowered to make any order, or to prefer any complaint, claim, or application, before justices or otherwise, if any such board resolve to make such order, or to prefer such complaint, claim, or application, a copy of the minute of such resolution, signed by the presiding chairman of such board, and sealed with their seal, and countersigned by their clerk or person acting as their clerk, shall be deemed and taken to be sufficient proof of the making of such order, or of the preferring of such complaint, claim, application, or otherwise, as the case may be; and that, whenever, either for the purpose of making an order for the removal of a pauper, or on the trial of an appeal against such order, or for any other purpose, it shall be necessary to prove to what parish a pauper has become chargeable, (if in such parish the laws for the relief of the poor shall be administered by a board of guardians or a district board), a certificate of such pauper having so become chargeable, signed, sealed, and countersigned as aforesaid, shall be sufficient proof to what parish and at what time such pauper became and was chargeable, unless the contrary shall be proved by other legal evidence; and that, in all cases in which the guardians of any parish or union are or may hereafter be empowered to make any application or complaint, or to take any proceedings before any justices at petty or special or general or quarter sessions, it shall be lawful for any officer of such |