is no ground for saying that the possession was ever adverse, as it was in Rex v. Garway (a). 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of PATTESON, WILLIAMS, and COLERIDGE, Js., concurred. CUDDINGTON. (a) Burr. S. C. 632. Orders quashed. The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of WORTHENBURY. of removal that the justices making it, and stated in it to be justices of ON N appeal against an order of two justices, dated 26th It is no objecJuly, 1844, for the removal of Samuel Griffiths from tion to an order the township of Wolverhampton, in the county of Stafford, to the township of Worthenbury, in the county of Flint, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case, the material part which was as follows: of The order of removal commenced thus: "Whereas complaint has been made to us, whose names are hereunto set and seals affixed, being two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the county of Stafford, &c. We, the said justices, upon due proof &c., do adjudge, &c. Given under our hands, &c. "W. Mannix (L. s.) The examinations were signed in the same manner. "To the Overseers &c. "Take notice, that we, &c. do intend at the next general quarter sessions of the peace, to be holden in and for the county of Stafford, to appeal against an order of W. Mannix and George Briscoe," &c. the county, sign it with the initials of their Christian names. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of The only material ground of appeal was, "that the order and examination (copies whereof were sent to us) are bad and insufficient on the face thereof." At the trial of the appeal the appellants objected, that the names of the parties who made the order, and before whom the examination was taken, did not sufficiently appear on the face of the order and examination. This objection was overruled by the sessions, who confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court thereupon. If the Court shall be of opinion that the objection should have prevailed, then the order of removal and the order of sessions are to be quashed, otherwise to be confirmed. Whitmore, in support of the order of sessions.-The objection as to one of the justices is removed by the notice of appeal. [Lord Denman, C. J., (stopping him).— One would think that a court which was bold enough to decide such a point might have also had the courage to refuse a case.] Corbett and E. Yardley, contrà.-The names of the justices should be inserted at length; otherwise, in the case of a common name, there would be a difficulty as to service of notice. [Coleridge, J.-Judges' orders are signed with their initials only]. This is not merely an order, but a judgment as to the settlement in question, which may decide future derivative settlements. [They cited Rex v. Evett (a), Rex v. Bowen (b), Rex v. Bennett (c), Rex v. Steventon (d), and the Statute of Coroners, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 83, s. 2.] PER CURIAM (a).-This is clearly sufficient. They state themselves to be justices of the county, which is the material point. Order of sessions confirmed. (a) Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge, Js. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of MANCHESTER. ON appeal against an order of two justices of the borough of Preston in the county of Lancaster, dated 22nd February, 1844, for the removal of Ann Molineux from the township of Preston in the said borough to the township of Manchester in the said county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of Court upon a case. this May 28th. The examinacontained the following state tion of a pauper ment of charge ability:-"I the township of time past, and have lived in P. for some am now residing in the work The only question raised was, as to the sufficiency of house in that the statement of chargeability in the examinations. Ann Molineux, the pauper, said, "I have lived in the township of Preston for some time past, and am now residing in the workhouse in that town. I have been and am now chargeable to the said township of Preston." The material ground of appeal was, "that the said examination contains no legal evidence that the said Ann Molineux has been or is now actually chargeable to the respondent township." If this Court should be of opinion that the examination is insufficient on this ground, then the order of removal, and of sessions confirming the same, to be quashed; otherwise to stand confirmed. Cowling appeared in support of the order of sessions, but the Court called on Crompton, contra.-This case is not distinguishable town; I have been and am now actually chargeable to the said township:"-Held, sufficient. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of from Regina v. High Bickington (a), where a statement that a pauper was chargeable was held insufficient. [Williams, J.-That was a conclusion of law without MANCHESTER. facts; here is a fact stated; how can she reside in the workhouse without being chargeable?] She may be there as matron or servant; or this may be the Union Workhouse, in which case there would be no evidence of her receiving relief from the township. Evidence of chargeability ought distinctly to appear on the examination. PER CURIAM (b).—We think it does sufficiently appear that there is some evidence of chargeability. You contend it must be conclusive evidence, which is not necessary. Order of sessions confirmed. (a) Antè, Vol. 1, p. 121. (b) Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge, Js. May 28th. An order was made for the removal of a woman and her illegitimate child, aged five months, to S. The notice of chargeability The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of STOCKTON. ON appeal against an order of two justices, dated July 2nd 1844, for the removal of Elizabeth Goldie and her alleged illegitimate child Mary Ann, aged five months, from the parish of Sutton in the borough of Kingston upon-Hull to the township of Stockton in the parish of stated only the Stockton-upon-Tees in the county of Durham, the sessions confirmed the order so far as respected the mother, mother to be chargeable: Held, that, as a child under and quashed the same so far as respected the daughter, seven years old subject to the opinion of this Court on the following would be re movable with its mother, case: whether mentioned in the order or not, the omission of its name from the notice of chargeability did not vitiate the order. An order must shew on the face of it that the complaint was made to the removing justices within their jurisdiction, and a recital that it was made " upon complaint to us, A. and B., two justices for the county of C.," (without also stating in), is insufficient. At the time of making the order of removal appealed against, the daughter was of the age of five months, and was residing with the mother in the parish of Sutton. The notice of chargeability sent by the respondents to the appellants, with a copy of the order of removal, was as follows:— "In the matter of Elizabeth Goldie, a pauper. "To the overseers of the poor of the township of Stockton, in the county of Durham. "We, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Sutton, in the borough of Kingstonupon-Hull, do hereby give you notice that the abovenamed pauper Elizabeth Goldie, together with now residing in the workhouse in the parish of Sutton, has become chargeable to our said parish of Sutton, and that an order of justices has been duly obtained for her removal to your said township of Stockton, as last place of legal settlement, a copy of which order, as also a copy of the examination on which the same was made, are herewith sent. And take notice, that, unless you appeal against the said order, and, within twentyone days from the service hereof, duly serve notice of such appeal, the said paupers will be removed to your township of Stockton, in pursuance of the said order." (Dated and regularly signed). Two objections were made by the appellants to this notice of chargeability at the trial of the appeal: 1. That it made no mention of the daughter, and that, therefore, by virtue of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 79, the order of removal as to the daughter must be quashed, and that an order of sessions confirming the order of removal as to the mother and quashing it as to the daughter would be illegal, on the ground that its necessary effect would be to separate the mother and child, and that, therefore, the order of removal ought to be quashed altogether. 2. That the said notice was bad in stating that the pauper VOL. II. C N. S. C. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of |