1. The 57 Geo. 3, c. 91, s. 1, providing for fees to be taken by clerks of the peace in counties, empowers the justices at quarter sessions to make and settle a table of such fees, which, when so made and settled, shall be subjected to the approbation of the justices at the ensuing quarter sessions, and then laid before the Judges at the next assizes for the county, for their ratification and confirmation; and empowers them from time to time in like manner to make other tables instead of, or in addition to, the former, which are to be approved, ratified, and confirmed in like manner; and provides that such fees shall be the only fees taken by the clerks of the peace.

Where, under this statute, a table of fees has been made at one quarter sessions, approved at the next, and ratified by the Judges at the following county assizes, the court of quarter sessions has no power to interfere with the fees by a general order, but must resort to the course prescribed by the act.

Semble, that the sessions have no power to abolish such fees, they having been sanctioned by act of Parliament. Regina v. The Justices of Somersetshire,

441

2. To be respondent in lunatic appeal.

See APPEAL, 2.

1. The stat. 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, give summary jurisdiction to magistrates over servants in husbandry, artificers, calico-printer, handicraftsman, miner, collier, labourer, or other person who, having contracted with a master, shall be guilty of any misconduct or misdemeanour in the execution of their service:-Held, that a "designer," in the trade of a calicoprinter, is a person within that statute; and a warrant of commitment under the 3rd section, which stated that "E. O. had contracted to serve as a designer," without using any of the words of the statute, was held sufficient. In re Ormerod,

38

2. Where a warrant of commitment, under stat. 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, does not recite any conviction, and where no conviction is returned, it must appear in the commitment that the magistrate has done all that is necessary to make the conviction lawful.

Therefore, a warrant of commitment was held bad, where it did not clearly appear on the face of it that the witnesses in support of the charge had been examined in the prisoner's presence. In re Tordoft, 171

3. A commitment in execution, under the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, stating that complaint had been made against E. C., servant to C. G., for misconduct, &c., in his said service, was held insufficient, for not stating the nature of the service. In re Copestick, 181

4. A return to a habeas corpus made by a gaoler in the case of four prisoners, A., B., C., and D., committed to prison under 4 Geo. 4, c. 31, s. 3, stated that the prisoners A. and B. were detained in custody under a warrant dated &c., and C. and D. under a similar warrant of the same date. (The return set out the warrants, which were in the present tense, "I do convict").

That afterwards, and whilst the prisoners were in custody under the said warrants, four other warrants were delivered to him for the commitment of A., B., C., and D., respectively. (These warrants were also set out, and recited the offence, &c., and conviction in the past tense):

Held, that, though the first two instruments were insufficient, the last four, being merely commitments reciting convictions, were, as such, good upon the return made to the writ. In re Walker,

182

5. Warrants of commitment under stat. 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 3, which do not recite a conviction, are to be construed as convictions, and everything necessary to shew jurisdiction must appear on the face of them to have been done by the magistrate. Therefore, a warrant of commitment reciting, that, "whereas J. G. was duly brought before me to answer the said complaint, and I, the said justice, duly thereupon, then and there, in the presence as well of the said J. J. [complainant], as of the said J. G., did examine and inquire into the proofs and allegations of the said parties touching the matter of the said complaint," &c. was held bad, as it did not shew that the witnesses were examined on oath, or in the presence of defendant.

Semble, that such warrants should set out the evidence taken before the magistrates. In re Gray, 354

6. Under the 9 Geo. 4, c. 69, a conviction adjudged that the defendants should enter into recognisances "that each of them should not offend again," (omitting the word "so"), and was confirmed on appeal. On motion to discharge the defendants under a writ of habeas corpus, neither the prosecutors nor defendants having brought up the conviction by certiorari or by a verified copy-Held, that, the conviction not being brought

8. The stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 75, reciting a convention between her Majesty and the King of the French, provides for the mutual delivering up to justice persons, who, being accused of certain offences therein specified, (inter alia, fraudulent bankruptcy), committed in one country, shall be found within the territories of the other; and empowers a justice in England, upon a requisition duly made in the name of the King of the French, and signified by the warrant of the Secretary of State, &c., to such justice, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of, and to commit the person accused to gaol, there to remain until delivered pursuant to such requisition.

A Frenchman was committed under the above statute upon a charge of fraudulent bankruptcy committed in France. The warrant of commitment directing the gaoler to keep him in custody "until he shall be discharged by due course of law," was held insufficient. In re Besset, 337

9. A warrant, issued by a justice of Tipperary for the apprehension of J. N., stated that he "stands indicted in the Peace Office of the county," and commanded the police

of the county to apprehend and "him in safe custody keep, so that you may have his body before her Majesty's justices of the peace at the next sessions," &c.:-Held bad, as the words "Peace Office" were without definite meaning, and did not disclose in what court the indictment had been preferred:-Held, secondly, that a magistrate has no authority to order the police to keep a prisoner in custody.

Semble, that the warrant was bad for not stating that the defendant had not yet appeared or pleaded. Nesbitt,

10. For want of sureties. GAOL.

COMPLAINT.

In re

366 See

1. Where it appeared by affidavit, that, on an appeal against an order of removal, the appellants offered evidence to shew that no complaint had been made before the removing justices, (an objection taken in their grounds of appeal), but that the sessions refused to hear the evidence on the ground that the recital of the complaint in the order was sufficient, this Court granted a mandamus to compel the sessions to enter tinuances, and hear the appeal. gina v. Justices of Sussex,

con

Re

438

2. An order for the removal of a pauper, his wife, and their six children, recited that it was made upon complaint of the overseers of the poor of the parish of B., and adjudged the place of the last legal settlement of the pauper, his wife, and their six children, to be in the parish of E. The examinations sent to the appellants with the order included a copy of the information and complaint of J. S. one of the overseers of the poor of B. (the respondent parish). It was admitted, at the trial of the appeal, that the application of J. S. was made on behalf and with the consent of the parish officers of B. generally:

VOL. I.

2. A local act, 28 Geo. 3, c. 64, s. 75, prohibits the exposing for sale of certain goods on the footway of a street, under a penalty of 10s.; and by sect. 90, the justices have a summary jurisdiction to enforce the payment of the penalty. By a subsequent act, 34 Geo. 3, c. 104, intituled "An Act to amend and enlarge the former act," the section in the first act creating the offence is repealed and re-enacted, with this difference, that the penalty is made 208. instead of 10s. There was no clause in the last act as to the mode in which the penalty should be enforced:-Held, that, as the first act was repealed by the second, the justices, having granted a distress-warrant for the purpose of enforcing payment of a penalty imposed by this latter act, were liable to an action of trespass. Ward v. Ste162

venson,

3. The 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, s. 1, does not apply where the offence charged amounts to a felony.

3 A

Therefore, where a defendant under that statute was convicted by two justices, "for that he the said W. J. did contract with T. R. G., as a servant in husbandry, and hath, in his said service and employment, been guilty of divers misdemeanours, in that he, the said W. J., did, on &c., purloin a quantity of barley to give to the horses under his care, contrary to the express commands of the said T. R. G.:"-Held, that the offence charged here was a felony irrespective of the contract of service, and that therefore a conviction under the statute was invalid. In re Jacklin, 280

4. The 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 10, reciting that materials used in the woollen, &c. manufacture are frequently found concealed in the possession of persons who have received the same, knowing them to be purloined or embezzled, or known not to be entitled to dispose of the same, and that the discovery of such purloiners, &c., is full of difficulty, &c., enacts, that any two justices, upon complaint that any such purloined, &c. materials are concealed in any dwelling-house, &c. by their warrant to cause such dwellinghouse, &c. to be searched in the daytime, and if any such materials suspected to be purloined, &c., shall be found therein, to cause the same, and the person in whose house, &c. the same shall be found, to be brought before any two justices, and if the said person shall not give an account to the satisfaction of such justices how he came by the same, such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and punished as the act directs.

Sect. 14 enacts, that every such person not producing the party of whom he received the materials, nor giving a satisfactory account how he became possessed of the same, shall for the first offence forfeit £20, one moiety to the informer, and the other

to the poor of the parish, or such public charity as the justices shall appoint.

The 58 Geo. 3, c. 51, s. 1, repeals, inter alia, an act passed in the 13 year of Geo. 3, intituled, “ An Act,” &c. (setting out the exact words of the title of the 17 Geo. 3, c. 56), and provides for a different distribution of the penalties.

The 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, s. 2, enacts, that, in all cases where two justices are authorised to hear and determine any complaint, one justice may do so, and issue the summons requiring the parties to appear before two justices; and provides, that, where the original complaint shall be made to any justices different from those before whom the same shall be heard and determined, the form of conviction shall be made conformable, and according to the fact:

Held, 1. That it is not necessary that a conviction under the 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, ss. 10 & 14, should state that the materials found in the possession of the defendant were found in his dwelling-house, or concealed therein, or under a search-warrant, the word "such" relating to the nature of the article found, and not to the circumstances under which it is found. 2. That the 58 Geo. 3, c. 51, referring to the subject-matter of the 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, notwithstanding the mistake in the title, the intention of the legislature must be held to repeal the 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, and the incorrect year must be rejected. 3. Where the original information has been taken before two justices, and a conviction made by two different justices, the form of the conviction under the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, s. 2, should be in conformity with that fact. Regina v. Wilcock,

651

See COMMITMENT; GAME; HIGHWAY; PROCEDENDO.

1. The examination of T. (the brother of C.), stated, "I believe I am fiftynine years old; C. was my sister, and younger than me; she was born at Y., and is the person mentioned in the certificate now produced as having been baptized at Y., July 6th, 1788:-Held, that this examination was not inadmissible, though T. appeared to be speaking to a fact which must have occurred when he was about three years old.

The respondents, at the trial of an appeal, are not bound to call all the witnesses examined before the remov3A 2