Page images
PDF
EPUB

moval may ap.

any order for removal to be de. termined at quar.

sions as well as

Sithly, 1ppeal sale of the offender or offenders' goods, by warrant under the hand and seal against un order of any justice of the peace of the county, riding, city, or town-corporate, to of iemoral. which such person was removed, to the constable of the parish or toun

where such offender or offenders dwell; which warrant, the said justice is 1. Who may appeal, &c.

hereby impowered and required to make; the overplus, if any be, to be returned to the owner or owners; and for want of such sufficient distress, then the said justice shall commit the said offender or offenders to the common gaol of the said county, riding, city, or town-corporate, or liberty, there to remain without bail or inainprize for the space of forty days: provided

always, and he it hereby enacted, that all such persons who think theirselves Persons aggriev- aggrieved with any such judgment of the said two justices, may appeal ed hy such re- to the next general quarter sessions of the peace, to be held for the county, peal to sessions. riding, city, town-corporate, or liberty, froin which the said person was so

removed." Appeal from jus. Sect. 9. Provides, “That if any person or persons shall find him, her, or tice of peace to

themselves aggrieved by any determination, which any justice or justices of quarter sessions, whose order shall the peace shall make in any of the cases above said, the said person or be final. persons shall have liberty to appeal to the next general quarter sessions

of the peace, to be held for the said county, riding, or division, city, or town. corporate, who, upon full hearing of the said appeal, shall have full power

finally to determine the same.” Appeal against And 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, s. 6, enacts, “That the appeal against any

order for the removal of any poor person from out of any parish, township,

or place, shall be had, prosecuted, and determined, at the general or quarter ter sessions. sessions of the peace for the county, division, or riding, wherein the parish,

township, or place, from whence such poor person shall be removed, doth lie, and not elsewhere ; any former law or statute to the contrary thereof, in

anywise, notwithstanding." Pauper may ap. Rex v. Ilartfield, Carr. 222; 2 Bott, 924. Two justices removed Nicholas peal to the ses.

Wells from Hartfield to Frampfield; from which order, Wells, and not the the parish. parish, appealed. By the whole Court. The party may appeal well as

The parish. Appeal against Rex v. Wendover, 2 Salk. 490; 2 Bott, 953. Two justices of St. Alban's remove a person to Wendover. Wendorer appeals to the sessions of St. Alban's

. next sessions for - By the Court. The appeal ought to have been to the sessions of the the comty, and county, and not of the corporation ; and as it was, it was coram nm judice. not of the corpo.

Rex v. Malden, Sett. $ Rem. 10; 2 Bott, 959 n.-By Lord Parker, C. J. Same point. Where there is a town corporate that hath sessions of its own,

and the jnstices within that town make an order there, if the parties will appeal, they must appeal to the county sessions, and not to their own sessions; for then there would be an appeal ab eodem ad eundem, there being, it may be, the

same justices sitting who made the order. An appeal from Rex v. East Donyland, Burr. S. C. 592; 2 Bott, 959. Two justices, for

the borough of Colchester, removed the pauper from St. Giles's, in Colchester, borough justices

to East Donyland, in Essex; and, on appeal to the quarter sessions of the county justices. borough, the justices there confirmed the order, and stated a case. Upon

arguing the matter there, it was observed, that the appeal ought to have been to the county sessions. Unto which it was answered, that the parties having acquiesced in the jurisdiction, and entered upon the merits, and actually seitled a case for the opinion of the Court, they were not at liberty now to make the objection. But by the Court. The Borough sessions had no jurisdiction to make this order of contirmation, and, therefore, their opinion and their order are both nugatory. The appeal ought to have been to the quarter sessions of the county. As no such appeal has ever been made, the original order stands good, ás unappealed from. And, accordingly,

the original order was confirmed. But by charter Rex v. The Justices of the Borough of Carmarthen, and County of the same the magistrates of a borough may

Borough, 4 B. & A. 291. Two justices of the borough of Carmarthen, on 23rd have jurisdiction. May, 1820, removed a pauper from St. Peter, in that borough, to New Whete such place Church, in the county of Carmarthen. New Church appealed, and in their

notice of appeal, stated their intention of appealing to the next quarter

sessions of the borough of Carmarthen. At the next sessions (which, it quarter sessions : appeared, were the general, and not the quarter sessions) for the borough,

an order of re. moval must be to

ration,

an order of

must be to the

sessions twice a year, and not

1. Who may ap

held on the 21st September last, the parties accordingly attended, and applied Sixthly, Appeal for leave to lodge the appeal; but the magistrates refused the application. against an order A rule nisi was obtained for a mandamus. It appeared, from the allidavits,

of removal. that the borough of Carmarthen was a county of itself, and that, by the charter, there were annually elected six peers of the borough; who, with peal, &c. the mayor and recorder, were magistrates of the borough, and had the power, Held, that an aptwice in a year, to hold a court of view of frank-pledge, and to summon the peal against an sessions of the peace within the borough, and to hold the sessions of the might be made to peace there, and to do all things relating to the sessions of the peace, accord- the next general ing to the custom of England; and that, in the said court, they had full

sessions of the

peace for such power to hear, execute, and determine upon all articles, misprisions, tres- borough. passes, and offences, within the borough, which, according to law, belong to the court of view of frank-pledge, or to the office of justices of the peace in their quarter sessions, or otherwise to execute and determine. It also appeared, that the parish of St. Peter was co-extensive with the borough; but that three out of the eight magistrates did not reside in the parish. On behalf of the removing parish, it was argued, that there is nothing in the charter of the borough, enabling the magistrate to do acts relating to the poor laws, at their general sessions. Lord Hale lays it down, that a general sessions is perfectly distinct from a quarter sessions. By 13 & 14 Car. 11. c. 12, s. 2, the appeal was given to the quarter sessions, against orders of removal. But by 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, s. 6, the phrase was altered to “ general or quarter sessions." These two acts are, however, in pari materiû, and should receive a similar construction. Rex v. The Justices of London. Here, too, there are only three justices who can sit to determine this appeal; for, by 16 Geo. II. c. 18, all the rest are disqualified. And, by 17 Geo. II. c. 38, it was provided, that in limited jurisdictions, where there are not four magistrates, the appeal must be to the county sessions.-Abbott, C. J., said, I am of opinion that the true construction of the 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, is, that if there be an appeal to the sessions of a town which is a county of itself, where, by charter only, general sessions are held, it must be made to the general sessions. Here, the magistrates are empowered to hear and determine upon all articles within the borough, which, according to law, belong to the office of justices of the peace in their quarter sessions, or otherwise, to determine. Now this is a very large expression, and comprehends, as it seems to me, a power to decide upon orders of removal. As to the other objection, it appears, that there are three magistrates, at least, qualified to act; and a sessions of the peace may, it is known, be held before two magistrates. The act of parliament, to which a reference has been made, only applies to corporations or franchises, where there are not more than four justices altogether; and, besides, it does not apply to appeals against orders of removal. Upon the whole, therefore, I am of opinion, that this rule ought to be made absolute. (See Rex v. Essex, 1 B. & A. 210, post, 264, and ante, 27.]

2. To what Sessions the Appeal shall be, us to Time. (a) Rex v. Norton, 2 Stra. 831. Exception was taken to an order of sessions, 2: To what ses. because the justices' order was dated June 21st, and the sessions' order was shall be, as to not till Michaelmus sessions. To this it was answered, that the appeal is to time. be to the next sessions after the parties find themselves aggrieved, which is to be the next not till the removal ; and for aught that appears, Michaelmas sessions might sessions after the be the next sessions after the aggrievance. And so held in Milbrooke v. St. John's, in Southampton, M., 1 Geo. I. To which the Court agreed, and the grieved till after sessions' order was confirmed. Rex v. the Justices of Devonshire, Cald. 32; 2 Bolt, 961. A mandamus The time limited

for appealing had been moved for to hear an appeal to an order of removal : the sessions

against an order had refused to enter into it, as one sessions had intervened since the removal. of removal is not The order of removal was dated October 21st, 1776 ; in November, the pauper matter being rewas removed ; some time afterwards it was agreed betu een the two parishes, ferred to arbitrathat the question should be decided by an opinion, provided such opinion tion, if the award

is not final.

removal. Parties not ag

the removal.

(a) See division of the subject, ante, 761.

2. To what ses

Sixthly, Appeal was given before the 14th day of January, the sessions beginning on the against an order 15th. It was also agreed, that no other instructions should be given to the of removal.

counsel than the examination of the pauper, which was, That he was born

in Witheridge, and about the age of seven years was bound to Richard sions, &c. Elworthy, of Witheridge, with whom he lived till twenty-one, and then made

an agreeinent with his master to give him one guinea to discharge him from his apprenticeship. Elworthy gave him a discharge under his own hand : after different services he gained a settlement, by hiring and service, under Robert Salter, in Paddington, if he was so far discharged as to be capable of gaining a settlement by hiring and service. On the 10th of January, the opinion was given ; and was, “ That if the indenture of apprenticeship remained in the master's bands uncancelled, the apprenticeship still continued, and the agreement was no dissolution thereof, but only a licence to the apprentice to serve where he pleased.” On this day, the officers of Wither. idge told the officers of Paildington, that, as the opinion was not decisive, they must inquire of tlie master what had become of the indenture. At the sessions, on the 15th, no appeal was entered. At Easter sessions following, Paddington appealed, but the justices refused to enter into it. A mandamus was moved for, on the ground that, under the agreement, the opinion in favour of Paddington was conclusive, and that Paddington had appealed, in consequence of objections raised to this decision subsequent to the Epiphany Sessions, and therefore, the statutable limitation of appeal to the next sessions ought, during the time the parties were under the terms of compromise, to be suspended : the Court being satisfied of the appeal having been prevented, in consequence of the objection not having been raised prerious to the Epiphany Sessions :-By Lord Mansfield, C. J. As both parties had agreed that this question should be submitted to counsel, and that his opinion should conclude, though the Court does not quite agree with the counsel in point of law, they would not, had the opinion been positive, have granted the mandamus. Upon the point of law, I am of opinion, that if the indenture had not been destroyed, but remained in the master's hands, the apprentice would yet have gained a subsequent settlement in Paddington. The master received a guinea of his apprentice, then of full age, for the express purpose of vacating the indenture: Why, could the master, after this, have used the indenture against the apprentice ? So far froin it

, that the apprentice might have brought an action against the master for it. But the opinion of the counsel was hypothetical only, and upon a state of facts at the time not settled and submitted to him by the parties. The case,

therefore, might be considered as open to the interposition of the Court. But the merits of the case appearing to be clearly against the party applying, the Court, to prevent further litigation and expence, refused the rule ; and, on account of some misconduct with respect to the affidavits laid before the Court, by the prosecutors of the rule, directed that it should be discharged, with costs out of pocket. Mandamus refused.

Rex v. the East Riding of Yorkshire, Doug. 192. The order had been is meant the neat made on the 22nd of September, but the pauper was not removed till the 5th possible sessions,

of October. Hull, the place to which the pauper had been removed, from Whitby, is sixty miles from Northallerton, where the sessions began on the 6th of October; at which sessions no appeal was entered. At the Ephipany sessions, Hull offered an appeal, but the justices refused to hear it. An appeal might have been entered at the Michaelmas sessions, on the second or third day.—The Court said, that by next sessions, the statute Car. II. must have meant the next possible sessions, and that here it was impossible for the appellants to lodge their appeal at the Michaelmas sessions. A man

damus granted. An appeal to the Rex v. Justices of Essex, 1 B. 4. A. 210. Rule to shew cause why a next quarter ses mandamus should not issue, commanding the justices to receive and hear an next practicable appeal against an order of removal from Tolleshunt Knights, to Washbrook.

The order was made on Tuesday, the 8th July, 1817, and was served about twelve o'clock on the following Saturday. The distance between the respons dent and appellant parishes was twenty-four miles, and the appellant parish was thirty-seven miles from Chelmsford, where the sessions were held on the Tuesday following, and lasted four days : and by the practice of that sessions

By nert sessions

sessions,

a motion to enter and respite the appeal might have been made at any Siathly, Appeal time during the sessions. The parish not having appealed at the July ses- against an order sions, the justices refused to receive the appeal at the Michaelmas sessions. of removal. Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The 13 & 14 Car. II., certainly directs the appeal 2. To what ses. to be at the next quarter sessions, but that must mean the next practicable sions, &c. sessions. The parish officers must have a reasonable time allowed them to make the necessary enquiries, that they may judge of the propriety of appealing or not. The notice here is served on the Saturday. I am of opinion, that they are not bound to devote Sunday to such a purpose. They have then only one entire day, i. e. the Monday, to get the necessary information, and to consider whether they will appeal or not, and that, in my judgment, is not sufficient. It has been said, that although the appeal could not have been heard at those sessions, still that it ought to have been entered and respited: but that would only be incurring an useless expence, without conferring any benefit on either party, and was, therefore, quite unnecessary. Rule absolute.

Many of the earlier cases (a) had determined, that it was necessary to enter when it is not and respite an appeal at the next sessions, although there was not time to

enter and respite. try it then; a more reasonable rule was laid down in Rex v. The Justices of Devon, 8 B. & C. 640. The order of removal from Upottery to Petminster, was served on the 8th of April. The sessions were held on the 15th of April, at Exeter. Petminster is eight miles from Upottery, and thirty miles from Exeter. The sessions require eight clear days' notice to try an appeal. An appeal may be entered and respited without notice. The appeal was not entered at the Easter sessions, but at the July sessions, when they refused to hear it. Lord Tenterden, C. J., said, It is clear, that in this case, the appellant could not have tried his appeal at the April sessions, but it was contended that he ought to have entered it then, and adjourned it. The entry for an adjournment only, is an useless act; and only occasions unnecessary expence. I think, therefore, he was not bound to enter it at those sessions. One inconvenience only can follow from our holding that it is not

necessary to

(a) Rer v. Herefordshire, 3_T. R. notice of appeal, the appeal might have 504. The order was made on Friday, been then entered and adjourned, acthe 18th of April ; on the 19th the pau- cording to 9 Geo. III. c. 7, s. 8. The per was removed; on Tuesday, the 22nd, other judges concurring, --Rule disihe sessions was held at llereford, twenty charged. miles distant from the parish to which Rer v. The Justices of the West Riding the pauper was removed; at which ses- of York, 4 M. & S. 327. An order of sions it is the practice not to receive any removal from a township in the West appeal after the Tuesday morning. The Riding to Saint Luke, in Middleser, dated parish not having appealed at those on the 3rd of January, and executed on Easter sessions, the justices at the Mid- the 12th, and the Epiphany sessions for summer sessions refused to receive the the l'est Riding were holden on the appeal.-Lord Kenyon, C.J. The words 18th. The parish of Saint Luke did not of the act of parliament are very strong, appeal to those sessions, but offered to and they require the appeal to be made appeal at the Easter sessions in April, at the sessions next after the grievance. when the justices refused to receive it.Where, indeed, an order of removal has Le Blanc, J., (in the absence of the Chief been made some time before, and only Justice), said, We do not think that the executed a very short time before the parish were entitled strictly to pass over sessions, so that there was no possibility the first sessions; but, if they had done of appealing to those sessions, this court at the second as much as they ought to has interfered, by granting a mandamus have done, the Court would have relieved to compel the justices at the following them. The parish might possibly have sessions to receive the appeal; because gone, in the first instance, to the Epiphany the words “ next sessions” mean “ the sessions, but they have not done this, next possible sessions.” But this is a and have also not placed themselves in very different case; for there were two a situation to be heard at the second intervening days after the execution of sessions; the Court, therefore, do not see the order, and before the Easter sessions; a suthcient ground for granting the man. and if there were not sufficient time, be: damus. Rule discharged. fore those sessions, to give reasonable

2. To what ses.

Sixthly, Appeal necessary, under such circumstances, to enter the appeal at the first sessions, against an order viz. where the removal is made within eight days of the sessions, so that the of removal.

parish to which the pauper is removed, cannot try their appeal at those ses

sions, the removing parish may not know of the intention of the other parish sions, &c. to appeal till within eight days before the second sessions. If that should

prove an inconvenience, the sessions may remedy it by requiring, under such

circumstances, a longer notice. Rule absolute for a mandamus. Same point. Rex v. The Justices of Kent, 8 B. & C. 639; 3 M. & R. 15. The order

of removal from Lenham to Pluckley, was served on the 8th of April. The sessions were, on the 15th at Maidstone ; they require eight clear days' notice to try an appeal. The appeal was first entered at the July sessions; when the order was served, the officer of Pluckley said they should appeal. The officers of Lenham observed, that nothing could be done at the April sessions, because there were not eight clear days. The sessions, in July, refused to hear it.- Lord Tenterden, C. J. We think it reasonable, that the parish of Pluckley should have an opportunity of trying their appeal; they may, probably, have been misled by the observation of the officer of Lenham. Independently of that, it appears to me to have been wholly unnecessary to enter and adjourn the appeal at the first sessions, when they could not then

try it. Mandamus granted. Same point. Rex v. Southampton, 6 M. f. S. 394. The order of removal from Ropley

to Bentworth, was made on the 2nd, and served on the 7th of January. The sessions were on the 14th at Winchester. Eight days' notice is necessary to have an appeal heard. Bentworth is five miles from Ropley, and fifteen from Winchester. The appeal was first entered at the Easter sessions, when they refused to hear it.—Lord Ellenborough. The order was made on the 2nd, and not served till the 7th. What prevented the order's being executed promptly? If it had been served immediately, the appellants might, for any thing that appears to the contrary, have gone to the first sessions and tried their case. The respondents having, by their own act, abridged the time, it seems reasonable that the appellants should be allowed to the next sessions, nunc pro tune, for this purpose: for where delay has been caused by one party, the most favourable construction should be adopted as regards the other.—Abbott

, J. The effect of the delay was to prevent the appellants, if they had been so minded, from trying their appeal at the first sessions. Allowing that a satisfactory reason might be given for the delay, still the

appellants ought not to be prejudiced by it. Mandamus granted. Where an order Rex v. Surrey, 1 M. f. S. 479. Order of removal from Richmond to of removal was

Mortlake, was dated the ilth of January, and executed in the afternoon of ed the day before that day. The sessions for Surrey began on the 12th. The affidavit stated, the holding the that there was not sufficient time to procure any information respecting the Epiphany ses. sions, and the pauper, or the evidence to support an appeal; notice must be served of their parish gave due intention to try such appeal, at least six clear days before the sessions. The

sessions are always adjourned for a certain time, and appeals are allowed to be lodged at any time during the sitting of the sessions, or at the adjoum

ment held next after the making such order, without requiring notice. The the justices re fused to hear the January sessions commenced on the 12th, and lasted fourteen days, when appeal, the Court they were adjourned to the 2nd of February, (which adjournment lasted one armanlagranted day,) and again adjourned to the 1st of March, which lasted two days. Nerothe justices to ington, where the sessions were holden, was distant eight miles from Mor!

lake.Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The statute does not contemplate the contiappeal.

nuance of the sessions. It enacts that the party may appeal “ to the next quarter sessions,” without adding “ or some adjournment thereof." It takes the holding of the sessions as the point of time, to which it refers the appeal; and the sessions are always considered in law as one day, to whatever period they may, by accidental causes, be extended. The appellant parish ought to have a reasonable time allowed for considering whether they will appeal or not. The question is, Whether the interval between the 11th and 12th of January was a reasonable time for that purpose? We are of opinion that it was not. Bayley, J., referred to Rex v. Flinishire, Js. Rule absolute.

(See also second point on Rex v. Carmarthen, 4 B. f A. 291, ante, 762, 763.]

made and execut.

notice and en. tered at the Eas. ter sessions, at which sessions

receire such

« PreviousContinue »