this to the until the said A, B. should be legally directed to the contrary. And whereas it appears aforesaid, this Lord one thousand eight hundred and day of in the year of our First, Of com pelling parents, E. (E.) Commitment of a Parent or Child for disobeying an Order of County of To the constable of the parish of at in the said county, and to the keeper of the common gaol of the said county of Whereas, by an order under the hands and seals of Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the county of quorum, made at a petty sessions held at and the &c. Commitment for two of his one whereof is of the disobedience. in the said county of day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and upon an application to the said petty sessions by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of to have an order made on for him to maintain his A. B. of in the county of in the said county of to the said parish of vide for his said who is poor and unable to work so as to maintain and support himself, and chargeable from the date of the said order, the sum of at in the at a petty sessions then held by and upon the oath of A. O., one of the overseers of the poor of the said parish of they, the said last-mentioned justices, did then and there issue their warrant to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of to levy the said penalty (being the sum of tress and sale of the goods and chattels of him, the said A. B., and to apply the same according to law: And whereas it duly appears unto us, J. S. and T. P., esquires, two of his Majesty's justices of the peace for the said county of held at our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one of the overseers of the poor of the said parish of in the said county of this at a petty sessions day of in the year of as well upon the oath of A. O., First, Of compelling parents, &c. Secondly, Order of maintenance. The order must set forth that the person is poor, &c., and not able to work. And that the per at said overseer of the poor, has used his best endeavours to levy the said sum on the goods said, the day of (Secondly)-Of the Order of Maintenance. Of every Poor, Old, Blind, Lame, and Impotent Person, or other poor person not able to work.] St. Andrew's Undershaft v. Jacob Mendez de Breta, 1 Ld. Raym. 669; 2 Nol. P. L. 264. The defendant, being a Jew, had an only daughter, who was converted from Judaism, and embraced Christianity, whereupon the defendant turned her out of doors, and refused to allow her any maintenance. On complaint to the sessions, they, reciting that she was the daughter of the defendant, and that he was a man able to maintain her, made an order that the defendant (being very rich) should allow her 20s. a month. But because they did not allege that she was poor, or likely to become chargeable, the order was quashed. Rex v. Gulley, Fol. 47; 1 Bott, 366; 2 Nol. P. L. 264. It was moved to quash an order of sessions. The order set out, that one Mary Gulley was in a poor destitute condition, and that her father was able to maintain her, and therefore they made an order upon him to allow her 2s. 6d. a week till further order. Objected, it did not appear that she was lame, blind, or unable to work; so that, though she was in a destitute condition, it might be because she would not work: And upon this exception the Court quashed the order of sessions. Being of Sufficient Ability.] Q. v. Halifax, Sett. & Rem. 52; 1 Bott, son on whom the 431; 2 Ñol. P. L. 264. Örder for the father-in-law to pay so much a week to his daughter-in-law was quashed, because it was not said that he was of sufficient ability. order is made, is of sufficient ability. An order to pay indefinitely as to time, is good. The order must be made by the justices of the County where such sufficient person dwells. Pauper not to be sent to such sufficient person. In that Manner, and according to that Rate, as by the Justices of that County where such Sufficient Persons dwell, in their sessions shall be assessed.] Jenkin's case, 2 Salk. 534; 1 Bott, 428; 2 Nol. P. L. 264. An order of sessions was made, that the defendant shall pay 2s. a week towards the support of his father, till that Court shall order the contrary. Which was held good because it was indefinite, and no set time limited; and if an estate happened to fall to him, they might apply to the justices, otherwise if a time was limited. By the Justices of that County where such Sufficient Persons dwell.] Therefore if a child live in the county of Middlesex, and be maintained by the parish there, and the grandfather live in the county of Suffolk, the justices of Middlesex can make no order therein, but the justices of the county of Suffolk must make the order. 2 Bulstr. 344. In their Sessions shall be Assessed.] Vide 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 26, ante, p. 165; Reg. v. Jones, Fol. 41; 1 Bott, 425; 2 Nol. P. L. 262. There was an order for the grandmother to take care of her grandchildren, and by the order they send the grandchildren to the grandmother. By the whole Court: they cannot send the grandchildren to the grandmother; but the justices ought to have made a rate upon the grandmother of so much a week. And it is said, that in the order of sessions it ought to appear that the party to be relieved is become chargeable to the parish; for unless he be so, the parish has no ground of complaint. 16 Vin. Abr. 424; Rex v. Tripping, 1 Bott, 430; 2 Nol. P. L. 264; Ld. Raym. 699. And an order may be that the grandfather shall pay so much for the time past while the grandchild was chargeable, as well as for the time to come, the father being living, but unable to do it. Reg. v. Joyce, 16 Vin. Abr. 423. On pain of 20s. a month- -to be levied by distress.] Mr. Christian has supposed (1 Bla. Com. 448, note 1) that the relations mentioned in the 43 Eliz. c. 2, can only be compelled to allow each other 20s. a month, or 131. a year; but he has not distinguished between the power to award a sufficient maintenance and the punishment for the breach of the order. The amount of maintenance is in the discretion of the magistrates, and they may order much more than 20s. a month. And if the party disobey the order by not paying that sum, though exceeding 20s. a month, he may be indicted. 2 Burr. 799. Rex v. Robinson, 2 Burr. 799; 1 Bott, 455; 2 Nol. P. L. 265. The defendant was indicted for refusing to obey an order of sessions, for maintaining his two infant grandchildren. It was moved in arrest of judgment, and urged, that this is a new offence: and where a statute creates a new offence, and gives a particular penalty, and a specific method of recovering the same, that course ought to be pursued, and the party shall not be punished by indictment.-By Lord Mansfield, C. J. The rule is certain, that where a statute creates a new offence by prohibiting and making unlawful any thing that was lawful before, and appoints a specific remedy against such new offence by a particular sanction and particular method of proceeding, that method must be pursued, and no other; but where the offence was antecedently punishable by a common-law proceeding, and a statute prescribes a particular remedy by a summary proceeding, there either method may be pursued, and the prosecutor is at liberty to proceed either at common-law, or in the method prescribed by the statute; because there the sanction is cumulative, and doth not exclude the commonlaw punishment. In the present case a remedy existed before the statute of the 43 Eliz. For disobedience to an order of sessions is an offence indictable at common-law. So that here are two remedies: one, to proceed by way of indictment for disobeying the order, where the weekly payment is neglected or refused to be made; the other, to distrain for the 20s. penalty after neglect of payment for a month. The former method has been taken in the present case; and there is no doubt but that an indictment will lie for disobeying an order of sessions. And the Court were unanimously of opinion that the judgment ought not to be arrested. Secondly, Of the order of maintenance. It must appear that pauper is chargeable. Penalty of 208. a month for disobeorder of maintenance to a larger enforced by indictment. dience, but the extent may be Indictment will lie for refusing to obey the order of sessions. An order of maintenance must be positive, not by recommendation; it of appealing must observe the words of the statute, and state how long the maintenance against the order. is to continue. Rex v. Pennoyer, 1 Bott, 433. Under the 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 6, the party against whom the order has been made may appeal against it to the justices at general quarter sessions, who upon evidence and consideration of the circumstances and ability of the party, may reduce the allowance or discharge the order. Since disobeying an order of justices is an offence at common-law, (vide Rez v. Balme, Vol. III. tit. Endictment, s. 2,) the law of the above case also applies to orders made by two or more justices in petty sessions, under stat. 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 26, ante, 165; 22 Geo. III. c. 83, s. 31. (Thirdly)—Of Persons deserting, or Absent from their Families. 5 Geo. I. c. 8; 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 31 & 32; 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, s. 3, and 11 Geo. IV. c. 10, s. 2. Thirdly, Of persons deserting, or absenting themselves from their Stat. 5 Geo. I. c. 8. "An act for the more effectual relief of such wives and children as are left by their husbands and parents upon the charge of the parish. Whereas divers persons run or go away from their places of families. abode into other counties or places, and sometimes out of the kingdom, Thirdly, Of persons deserting, &c. Churchwardens, &c., by warrant of two justices, may seize the offender's goods, &c. And by order of quarter sessions dispose thereof. Churchwardens accountable for the monies so received. Punishment as a vagrant. Application of some men leaving their wives, a child, or children; and some mothers run or go away, leaving a child or children, upon the charge of the parish or place where such child or children was or were born, or last legally settled, although such persons have some estates, which should ease the parish of their charge, in whole or in part: May it please your Majesty, therefore, that it may be enacted, and be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that it shall and may be lawful for the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of such parish or place where any such wife, or child or children shall be so left, upon application to, and by warrant or order from any two justices of the peace, to take and seize so much of the goods and chattels, and receive so much of the annual rents and profits of the lands and tenements of such husband, father or mother, as such two justices of the peace, as aforesaid, shall order or direct, for or towards the discharge of the parish or place where such wife, child or children are left, for the bringing up and providing for such wife, child or children; which warrant or order being confirmed at the next quarter sessions, it shall be lawful for the justices of such quarter sessions to make an order for the churchwardens or overseers for the poor of such parish or place, to dispose of such goods and chattels by sale, or otherwise, or so much of them, for the purpose aforesaid as the court shall think fit, and to receive the rents and profits, or so much of them as shall be ordered by the sessions, as aforesaid, of his or her lands and tenements, for the purpose aforesaid." By s. 2. The churchwardens and overseers aforesaid shall be accountable to the justices at the quarter sessions for all such money as they, or any of them, shall receive by virtue of this act. The 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, s. 3, enacted, that persons being able but wilfully neglecting to work to support their families, whereby they shall become chargeable to the parish, shall be deemed idle and disorderly persons punishable by imprisonment and hard labour, not exceeding a month. And the fourth section declares that "every person running away and leaving his wife, or his or her child, or children, chargeable, or whereby she or they, or any of them shall become chargeable to any parish, township, or place, shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond, punishable as therein mentioned."-See tit. Vagrants. The 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 31 & 32, contains provisions for the application seamen's wages. of the wages of Greenwich pensioners, seamen, and other persons in public employments, who desert or are absent from their families. (Post, 181, 2.) And the 11 Geo. IV. c. 10, contains provisions for the appropriation of half of the pay of men convicted under the laws for the prevention of smuggling, and sentenced to serve his Majesty in his naval service; and any one or more of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish where the wife or family have become chargeable, may complain on oath to two justices, who are to transmit their certificate to the commissioners of the navy, specifying the proportion of wages necessary for relief of the parish, not exceeding one half, and which commissioners are to take the requisite measures to cause the same to be paid to the person named in the certificate to be applied to the relief of the parish. See post, 183. Order of two justices must state how much of the should be seized, and must specify goods or rents the quantum of relief to be ap propriated out of them; and in case of rents must limit the period of such appropriations. Stable v. Dixon, 6 East, 163; 1 Bott, 457; 2 Nol. P. L. 238, 239, 305. The plaintiff declared in convenant for a year's rent. To the declaration there were four several pleas, of which the last only is material here. In this the defendant pleaded as to 71. 16s. parcel of the rent, that before the 25th of March, 1803, (when the rent became due), the plaintiff had gone away from his place of abode (at Corney) into some other place, leaving his wife chargeable to Corney; that he continued away from the 24th of June, 1801, to the time of the action brought, and that during all that time she continued chargeable; that it thereupon was necessary that she should be maintained by the parish: whereupon, upon application of the churchwardens of the parish, a warrant was directed by two justices to the said churchwardens and overseers, whereby (reciting as usual) they the said justices authorised and commanded the said churchwardens and overseers &c. of Corney, to receive the annual rents and profits of the lands and tenements Thirdly, Of perof the plaintiff at Bromhill, in the parishes of B. and W. in the county of sons deserting, Cumberland (the same being the lands and tenements demised to the defendant,) for and towards the discharge of the said parish at Corney, for the providing for the plaintiff's wife, &c. That on the 18th of July, 1801, the order was, in pursuance of the statute, confirmed by the Court; and the Court did then and there order the said churchwardens and overseers, &c., to receive 71. 16s. rent of the rents and profits of the lands and tenements of the plaintiff at B., in the parishes of B. and W., &c. being the premises so demised to the defendant for and towards the discharge of the said parish of Corney for the providing for the said D. S., the plaintiff's wife. And then the plea alleged payment thereof by defendant. To this the replication was, inter alia, that on the first of October, 1801, the said 77. 168. in the said order of sessions mentioned, was paid by defendant to the then churchwardens and overseers of Corney, pursuant to the said order, and that on the 25th of March, 1802, the said 71. 16s. was allowed by the plaintiff to the defendant out of the rent. To this replication it was, by the defendant, rejoined, that the said sum of 71. 16s. so mentioned in the fourth plea to have been so paid, was another and a different sum of 71. 16s. than the sum of 71. 16s. so deducted and allowed as aforesaid, viz. for the second year's payment under the said order in the said plea mentioned. To this there was a demurrer and joinder in demurrer. Holroyd, in support of the demurrer, made three objections: 1st, That the original order was void; 2nd, That the sessions had no original jurisdiction, and that therefore nothing done by them upon a void order could make it good; 3rd, That if the order of sessions were good, it had been complied with by plaintiff. Upon the first he urged, that the original order was void, as being prospective, to seize the rents and profits for future expences; or if it might be prospective, still it did not ascertain the quantum of relief required by the parish, conformably with the words "so much" in the statute, and cited Rex v. Chaffey, 2 Ld. Raym. 858. Upon the second he said, that the sessions had it only in their power to confirm the order, and direct a sale, and (perhaps) vary the sum before directed to be levied. Upon the third, that if the sessions could remedy any defect in the original order by ascertaining the sum to be raised, they have fixed it at 77. 16s., and that sum is by the pleadings admitted to be paid and deducted out of the rent: the order therefore is functus officio; for it does not state that the same sum shall be raised annually. Wigley, in answer to these points, said that the order in question followed the precedent in Burn's Justice; and observed, "that so much of the rents and profits" must mean of the "annual rents," &c.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The 5 Geo. I. gave to magistrates a power of appropriating to the purposes of the act so much of the goods and chattels, and so much of the annual rents and profits of the party, as they should order and direct, or as the sessions afterwards, to whose confirmation such order is to be submitted, should think fit. But it never was meant to invest the parish officers or magistrates with a right to take indefinitely all the property of such a person without apportioning how much of it was to be taken for that purpose. The language of the act is, that the goods and chattels, &c., are to be taken for or towards the discharge of the parish; which imports that it was to relieve the parish from a burthen already incurred, and which was therefore capable of being then ascertained. But even if they had a spective power, still the justices are to ascertain how much is to be taken. The act expressly says, the officers shall take so much as the justices shall order. The original warrant then being made in the exercise of an indefinite instead of a limited authority, and being void in that respect, the next question is, Whether it were capable of receiving confirmation from the sessions? and assuming that it could, as capable of limitation in respect of the sum to be take by the parish officers (for they seem there to have abandoned the ground of an indefinite seizure), then can the order of sessions be sustained beyond the terms of it, as an order to receive the sum of 71. 16s.? Admitting that it might be good to that extent, as an order to receive a definite sum (subject however to the objection to it as a confirmation of an original indefinite order of seizure), the answer is, that the sum is already paid and allowed: but taking it as it is now contended for, as an pro |