pellants have, nevertheless, a right to enter their appeal at the sessions in order to obtain costs. Regina v. The Justices of Merionethshire, 277

2. In an appeal to the quarter sessions, given by 9 Geo. 4, c. 40, s. 54, (against an order of two justices made under sect. 38, for the removal of an insane pauper to a lunatic asylum), the clerk of the peace, and not the justices making the order, must be respondent. Reg. v. Skipton, 350

3. W. B., being convicted by two justices under the 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 8, gave them notice of his intention to appeal, and entered into recognisances, as required by that statute, to try the appeal, abide the judgment of the sessions, and pay such costs as should be there awarded. He afterwards countermanded his appeal, but too late, according to the practice of the sessions. The respondents attended the sessions, and applied to the recorder to have the appeal entered, which was refused. They then applied to have the matter of the appeal heard and determined, or costs awarded to them; this the recorder also refused, on the ground that no appeal was before him. On an application for a mandamus to him to enter the appeal, hear the matter of it, or award costs-Held, that the recorder was right, as the respondents had no power to enter the appeal, nor the sessions to hear the matter of it unless entered; and that the power over the costs was only ancillary to the hearing of the appeal. Regina v. The Recorder of Bolton, 416

4. Notice of chargeability, accompanied by a copy of an order of removal, and of the examination upon which it was made, was served by the respondents on the appellants on the 2nd of August. On the 24th of August, the appellants served a notice of appeal on the respondents. The paupers were not removed. When

the appeal came on to be tried at the sessions, the court refused to hear it, on the ground that notice of appeal had not been given within twenty-one days after the receipt of the order, &c.:-Held, that, since the Poor-law Amendment Act, the order of removal creates a grievance giving a right to appeal, and that the notice of appeal in this case was in time, and is not limited to the twenty-one days mentioned in sect. 79 of that act. Regina v. The Justices of the West Riding,

445

5. An order of removal of a pauper from K. to C. was served upon C. in May, 1844. The parish officers of C. gave notice to try an appeal against the order at the next sessions, but did not appear at those sessions, nor enter the appeal, nor countermand the notice; whereupon the sessions made an order upon them for costs. In August the pauper was removed; whereupon C. gave fresh notice to try an appeal at the Michaelmas sessions. Those sessions commenced October 16th. On the 17th the appellants applied to the sessions to allow them to enter and try their appeal, which the sessions refused.

On an application for a mandamus to the justices, founded on an affidavit stating these facts,-Held insufficient, it being consistent with such statement that the application to the sessions was not in time according to their practice, as the Court will not presume that the sessions were wrong. Regina v. The Justices of Warwickshire,

463

ARTICLES OF THE PEACE. See RECOGNISANCE.

ASYLUM.

See LUNATIC.

2. By the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 72, overseers or guardians are empowered to apply to the quarter sessions for an order on the putative father for the maintenance of a bastard child, and the court to which such application shall be made shall proceed to hear evidence therein, and shall make such order as shall appear to such court to be just and reasonable. By s. 73, no such application shall be heard at such sessions unless fourteen days' notice shall have been given, under the hands of such overseers or guardians, to the person intended to be charged Proviso, that if, on the hearing of such appeal, the Court shall not think fit to make any order thereon, it shall award costs to the person so intended to be charged.

By the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, s. 1, all the powers of quarter sessions to make such orders are fully transferred to the special or petty sessions, except that the notice need not be given more than seven days (instead of fourteen) before the application to the

sessions.

A notice, under the above statutes, was served upon J. S., of the intention of the guardians of a union to apply to the next petty sessions for an order of maintenance in bastardy upon him. J. S. attended at the sessions, and, the case being entered on,

admitted the fact of being served with the notice, but required proof that it was signed by a majority of the guardians. This could not be proved, and thereupon the justices did not think fit to make any order thereon, and dismissed the application, but refused to order to J. S. his costs of resisting such application.

On motion for a mandamus to the justices to make such order for costs, -Held, that, as the hearing of the case by the justices was prevented by the preliminary objection as to notice, the justices had no power to give costs under the statutes. Regina v. Lord Hastings, 252

3. On an application to the petty sessions for an order in bastardy, under the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, the complaint was made by the churchwardens and overseers of the township of R. against J. B., the putative father. J. B. appeared at the petty sessions, and, after two witnesses had been examined and cross-examined, he required the justices to take his recognisance under sect. 3, and to transmit the case to the quarter sessions. The justices refused, and proceeded to hear, and adjudicated on the case:Held, that the justices were right in refusing to transmit the case to the quarter sessions, the investigation at petty sessions having once commenced.

The order adjudicated that J. B. should pay to the churchwardens and overseers of the township of R. the expenses incurred in the maintenance and support of the child, from the time of its birth to the time of making the order, and a weekly sum for future maintenance. There were in fact no churchwardens in the township:-Held, that the complaint by, and adjudication to pay to the churchwardens and overseers was valid; but that so much of the order as was retrospective was bad, for including more than six months from the time

of making such order, though it was good for the residue. Regina v. The Justices of Ripon, 292

4. The guardians of a union gave notice to H. B. of their intention to apply at the petty sessions for an order in bastardy to be made upon him, under 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, s. 3.

The parties attended at the petty sessions, December 7th, when H. B. having admitted the service of the notice, applied to the justices to postpone the case to the next petty sessions, which was accordingly done. On the next petty sessions, January 4th, H. B. attended, with two sureties, and, before the case was entered upon, applied to the justices to take his recognisance, and transmit the case to the quarter sessions. This the justices refused to do, and proceeded to hear the case. H. B. remained in the room, cross-examined the witnesses, and addressed the Court in his own behalf: the justices then made the order upon him:

Held, that, whatever right H. B. had at the time when he tendered his recognisance, he waived that right by the subsequent part which he took in the proceedings, instead of leaving the court when the application was refused. Regina v. Clarke,

310

5. On an appeal against an order of two justices under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, against the putative father of an illegitimate child, the sessions refused to hear the appeal, because no grounds of appeal, as required by the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, and 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, had been sent to the respondent.

Semble, that no grounds of appeal are required by the statutes in such a

case.

On an application for a mandamus to the sessions to hear such appeal, a copy of the rule nisi should be served on the respondent, as well as the justices; but where this had not been done, Patteson, J., allowed the rule

to be made absolute on terms. Regina v. The Justices of Derbyshire, 461

6. An order on the putative father of a bastard child for payments to the mother under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 3, must state that the evidence of the fact of the birth of the child was taken on oath; and, generally, such an order should state that the evidence on which it is founded, if of a nature to be supported by oath, has been taken on oath; and the omission will not be cured by precise adherence to the language of the Regina v. Wroth,

statute.

See CHILD.

EXAMINATION.

BRIDGE.

See HIGHWAY.

CERTIORARI.

494

1. The affidavit of service of notice of an application for a certiorari to remove an order of justices, required by 13 Geo. 2, c. 18, s. 5, to be given to the justices making such order, stated, that the deponent did, on &c., serve R. N., Esquire, one of the justices, &c., at the dwelling-house and usual place of abode of him the said R. N., at &c., by leaving a duplicate or counterpart of the said notice with W. R., the medical assistant of the said R. N., he the said R. N. being then ill in bed :”—Held insufficient, as it did not appear that the service of the notice upon W. R. was at the dwelling-house of R. N. Regina v. Nunn,

49

2. By the 13 Geo. 2, c. 18, s. 5, no writ of certiorari shall be granted to remove proceedings before justices, unless it be proved that six days' notice be given to the justice or justices, or two of them, by and before whom such proceedings were had.

An affidavit in support of a motion

for a certiorari stated, that notice had been given to J. T. and H. W., two justices of the peace present at the sessions at which the appeal mentioned in the notice came on for hearing:

Held insufficient, as it did not shew that the said J. T. and H. W. were actually present on the bench when the appeal was heard.

Such notice of application for a certiorari must be given to the justices pursuant to the statute, notwithstanding the case which the certiorari is to bring up has been granted by the sessions for the opinion of this Court.

Semble, an affidavit of notice of application for a certiorari purporting to be made by the attorney of the party applying, or his clerk, is sufficient without further proof that such person is such attorney or clerk. Regina v. The Justices of the West Riding, 406

3. Where, on the trial of an appeal against an order of removal, a magistrate who was present on the bench, (being a rate-payer in the respondent parish), before, the determination of the appeal, stated he should not take part or vote in the proceedings:Semble, that service of notice upon him of the intention to apply for a certiorari was insufficient. Regina v. The Justices of Hertfordshire, 413 n.

4. Service of notice of certiorari upon two justices, sworn to have been present at the hearing of the appealHeld, sufficient.

An order of sessions, confirming an order of justices, when removed into this court by certiorari, does not ex necessitate bring up the order of justices. The rule should be drawn up for both. Regina v. The Justices of Cornwall, 414

5. A certiorari had issued to bring up an order of sessions confirming an order of justices. The order of sessions being brought up on return was

quashed, but the order of justices not being returned with it:-Held, that a fresh writ of certiorari might issue to bring up the order of justices.

The six months for applying for a certiorari to bring up an order of justices which has been appealed against, and confirmed by the sessions, run from the date of confirmation, and not of the original order. Regina v. Morice, 585

6. On motion for a certiorari to remove into this Court an order of sessions, the affidavits alleged that the respondents were not present at the sessions, but that the order was served upon them by the appellants, with a caption stating the sessions to have been held before J. B., J. J., and others, &c. and that notice of the application for the certiorari had been served on the said J. B. and J. J., "who were two of the justices present at the sessions, at which the order was made, and two of the same justices whose names appear in the caption of the order." The order with the caption was annexed to the affidavits: -Held, sufficient to support the application. Regina v. Sevenoaks, 595

CHARGEABILITY.

1. Where an order of justices for removing a pauper from A. to B. was, on appeal, quashed generally, and A. obtained a second order for the removal 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 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. Regina v. Perranzabuloe, 16

2. The notice of chargeability sent to the appellants must be sent by a majority of the parish officers of the respondent parish.

On appeal against an order of removal, one of the grounds of appeal was, "that no legal or sufficient notice of chargeability had been given to the respondents.'

The notice sent was signed by three overseers, and it was proved in evidence that the parish officers consisted, in fact, of four overseers and two churchwardens.

The sessions having held the notice sufficient, and confirmed the order of removal, this Court quashed the order of sessions. Regina v. Westbury,

33

3. The examinations sent with an order of removal contained the following statement of chargeability: -A. F., the pauper, said, "I and my four children are now chargeable to the parish of A." J. P., relieving officer, said, "I am one of the relieving officers of the B. Union, and administer the relief ordered for the paupers of the said parish of A. The said A. F. and her four children are now chargeable to that parish:"-Held an insufficient statement of chargeability, as not shewing that the pauper had been actually relieved. Regina v. High Bickington,

121

4. A certificate of 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 countersigned 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 that the certificate was signed 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 being sealed, as required by the statute, i. e. with the seal of the board of guardians. Regina v. Farthinghoe, 238

5. There must be legal evidence of the fact of the chargeability of a pauper to the removing parish in the examinations sent with an order of removal.

And a statement in the examinations, that a pauper is chargeable to the parish, though coupled with a similar statement in the heading of the examinations, was held insufficient. Regina v. Lidford, 244

6. The examination of a pauper stated, "I am unable to maintain myself, and am now residing in, and receiving relief from, and am actually chargeable to the township of B.:” -Held, a sufficient statement of chargeability. Regina v. Great Bolton,

CHILD.

636

1. The stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7, provides for the maintenance of poor persons, not able to work, by their father, grandfather, &c., being of sufficient ability.

An order of justices at petty sessions, made on J. M., for the maintenance of A., B., and C., his three grandchildren, directed the payment of 6s. a week for that purpose, "for and during so long time as the said A., B., and C. shall be chargeable to the parish of B.:"—

Held, that the order was bad1. Because the words "not able to work," used in the statute, and the word "chargeable," in the order, are not convertible terms. 2. Because the adjudication ought to have been