1846. The QUEEN v. The Justices of FLINTSHIRE. mandamus, which is unusual. The question, however, is, whether the time when the justices at petty sessions made their adjudication, or the time when the order is served on the persons affected by it, is to be considered the time when the order was made? on that depends the sufficiency of the notice of appeal served on the woman. The 4th section of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, gives a right of appeal against an order on the putative father, provided he shall give notice to the woman within twenty-four hours "after the adjudication and making of any order." Those words point to the time when the adjudication on which an order is grounded is actually made, and, if so, the notice in this case was too late. Regina v. The Justices of Derbyshire (a) is in point. There it was held, that where a statute gave a right of appeal against an order, provided notice of appeal was given within six days after the order was made, the six days must be reckoned from the time of the justices verbally making the order, without reference to the time when it was served on the appellant. The practice is not to draw up orders formally till some time after they are pronounced, and this is no hardship on the appellant, as the statute does not require him to give the grounds of his appeal. Townsend, contrà.-The principle of the decision in Regina v. The Justices of Derbyshire (a) is directly opposed to the construction now contended for on the other side. In that case it was distinctly shewn by affidavit that the order was in fact signed by the justices on the day on which it bore date, and that the day of such date, therefore, was that on which the order must be taken to have been made; "making" and "signing" are therefore the same thing. In the present case, however, the (a) Antè, Vol. 1, p. 645; 14 L. J., N. S., M. C., 84. 1846. The QUEEN v. The Justices of justices refused to hear the evidence which the appellant was ready to produce to prove that the order was not signed until the 27th, although, if such evidence had been admitted, it would have established the sufficiency FLINTSHIRE. of the notice to the woman. Rex v. The Justices of Cheshire (a) shews that the time of making an order is the time when it is signed. As the justices refused to receive proper evidence, this Court will grant a mandamus to compel them to do so: Regina v. The Justices of Flintshire (b). If the former order is considered to be in force, as it is admitted to be defective, a certiorari will be granted in order to bring it up. WILLIAMS, J.-It seems to me perfectly clear that the justices did not inquire into a question which was a material one; namely, whether or not a notice of appeal was given in due time. That must depend on proof of the real time when the order was made; and I conceive there can be no doubt that the making of an order such as this is to be understood in the usual manner; like, for instance, the case of an order of removal, and that always means a regular order in writing, made and signed by the justices. The intent and meaning of the act here seems to be so too; and therefore the applicant was in time with his notice of appeal, if he could have proved before the justices that the signature was on the 27th, and not the 24th. The justices, by refusing to hear the evidence of the appellant, have in fact not heard the case. Rule absolute for a mandamus. (a) 5 B. & Ad. 441. (b) Antè, Vol. 1, 288; 13 Law J., N. S., M. C., 163. 1846. Jan. 31st. The QUEEN v. G. W. BLATHWAYT and Another, The Court will IN Michaelmas Term, 1845, Greaves had obtained a grant a cer tiorari to bring rule nisi for a certiorari to remove into this Court an up an order of removal for de- order, dated July 4th, 1845, made by two justices of the fects appearing county of Gloucester, for the removal of Francis Smart, it, although the his wife, and two children, from the parish of Chipping on the face of appellants, the parties making Sodbury to the parish of Alderley, both in the county the application, of Gloucester, in order that the same might be quashed. The order was as follows: did not avail themselves of their right of appeal, but allowed the time for appealing to elapse without taking any proceedings against the order. A certiorari was therefore granted to bring up an order of re that the justices who made the order were justices who had jurisdiction, or were acting within it. "To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Chipping Sodbury, in the county of Gloucester, and to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Alderley, in the county of Gloucester, and to each and every of them. "Gloucestershire, to wit. Whereas complaint hath been made unto us, whose names are hereunto set and seals affixed, being two of her Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the Sodbury division, in the said county of Gloucester, (one moval, where it whereof being of the quorum), by the churchwardens and overseers did not appear of the poor of the said parish of Chipping Sodbury, that Francis Smart, Emma his wife, and their two children, namely, Temperance Anna, aged about nine years, and Aaron, aged about five years, have come to inhabit, and are now inhabiting in the said parish of Chipping Sodbury, in the said county of Gloucester, not having gained a legal settlement there, nor having produced any certificate acknowledging themselves to be settled elsewhere, and that they are now actually chargeable to the same parish of Chipping Sodbury, and now receiving relief therefrom: We, the said justices, upon due proof thereof, as well by examination of witnesses, to wit, of Francis Smart and others, upon oath, as otherwise, and upon due consideration of the premises, do adjudge the same to be true, and that the place of the last legal settlement of the said Francis Smart, Emma Smart his wife, and their said two children, named and aged as aforesaid, is in the said parish of Alderley, in the said county of Gloucester. These are therefore, in her Majesty's name, to require and order, that, if, within twenty-one days after you the said churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of Chipping Sodbury shall have sent, by post or otherwise, unto the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of Alderley, a no tice in writing of the said Francis Smart, Emma Smart his wife, and their said two children, being so chargeable as aforesaid, together with a copy or counterpart of this order, and a copy of the examinations on which this order is made, no notice of appeal against this order shall be given by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of Alderley; or, if notice of appeal shall be given within the twenty-one days aforesaid, then forthwith after the time for prosecuting such appeal shall have expired, (if the same be not duly prosecuted); or in case the same shall be duly prosecuted, then forthwith after the final determination of the same, if this order, shall thereupon be confirmed, you the said churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of Chipping Sodbury, or some or one of you, or some proper person or persons to be employed by you, do remove and convey the said Francis Smart, Emma Smart his wife, and their said two children, from and out of your said parish of Chipping Sodbury, to the said parish of Alderley, and them deliver, together with this our order, or a duplicate or true copy thereof, unto the overseers of the poor there, or one of them, who are hereby required to receive and provide for them according to law. "Given under our hands and seals, at Old Sodbury, in the said county of Gloucester, the 4th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1845. “G. W. BLATHWAYT (L. s.) Symons shewed cause.-The Court is not bound to grant a writ of certiorari ex debito justitiæ, but will exercise a discretionary power under the circumstances of each case: Rex v. Bass (a), Regina v. The Manchester and Leeds Railway Company (b). And, in an Anonymous Case (c), it is said to be unusual to send a certiorari without a special cause. Now there is no special reason shewn here why this Court should interfere. It appears by the affidavits on behalf of the defendants, that two previous orders have been obtained for the removal of the same paupers from Chipping Sodbury to Alderley, both of which were quashed on (a) 5 T. R. 251. (b) 8 A. & E. 413. (c) 7 Mod. 118. 1846. The QUEEN บ. BLATHWAYT. 1846. The QUEEN ย. BLATHWAYT. technical grounds. The time for appealing has been allowed to pass by, and the order has been acted on, although no actual removal has taken place, because both parishes are in the same union, and the paupers are in the workhouse. The appellants, therefore, do not shew themselves entitled to the indulgence of the Court. The proper course was to have appealed to the quarter sessions; and, under the 5 Geo. 2, c. 19, the justices have power to amend any defects of form that may exist in the order. There is no direct authority for this application except in Regina v. Wollatts (a), where the objection does not appear to have been taken. In Ex parte The Overseers of Tollerton (b), the Court refused to grant a certiorari to bring up the examinations on which an order of removal was made, the sessions having refused to grant a case. In Rex v. Uttoxeter (c) and Rex v. The Justices of Somerset (d), the Court refused a certiorari to bring up a poor-rate, on the ground that the sessions was the proper tribunal for settling such matters. Greaves, contrà.-—It is not pretended that this order can be supported; it is defective in matter of substance as well as form. It does not shew that the justices who made the order were justices of the county of Gloucester, nor that they were acting within their jurisdiction. It is competent for the appellants to apply for a certiorari without having first appealed to the sessions. In Salkeld, 147, the rule is, that orders of justices cannot be removed before the time for appealing has expired, because it hinders the privilege of appealing; but, in Regina v. Wollatts (a), the Court granted a certiorari before the time for appealing |