1846. The QUEEN The Inhabitants of HOLNE. WILLIAMS, J.-I have this additional observation to make: how could the removing overseers compel the justices to receive evidence from the other side? and then, are the removing overseers to lose their order, because the justices will not do that which the overseers cannot compel them to do? Order of sessions confirmed. June 3. Stat. 52 Geo. 3, c. 93, sched. (L.), rule 13, empowers and requires any two commissioners of taxes, ON The QUEEN v. GRIFFIN. N an appeal against a conviction of James Griffin, for using a gun and dog for the purpose of taking and killing game without having obtained a certificate, the sessions confirmed the conviction, subject to the follow or one justice' ing case: of the peace of a commission er, on com plaint to him or them made of any offence described in the schedule being committed within his dis trict, to sum. monthe accused person to ap pear before him or them, and on appearance to hear and de termine, and to give judgment for penalties, On the 2nd January, 1843, the appellant was convicted of the offence mentioned in the conviction, of which the following is a copy : : "Devonshire, to wit.-Be it remembered, that, on the 2nd day of January, 1843, at the parish of Colyton, in the district of Colyton, in the county of Devon, James Griffin, of the parish of Seaton and Beer, in the county of Devon, labourer, was duly convicted by us of having, within three calendar months before the making of the information and complaint herein, to wit, on the 4th and to commit on non-payment, &c. :-Held, that one commissioner of taxes has no power under this act to receive an information and issue a summons, nor is such proceeding rendered legal by the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, s. 2, which enables one justice, deputy. lieutenant, or other person, to receive the information in cases required to be determined by two. day of October, 1842, at the said parish of Colyton, in the district aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, used a gun and dog for the purpose of then and there taking and killing game, without having obtained a certificate as is directed by the statute in that case made and provided, in order to an assessment for the year wherein the said James Griffin did so use such gun and dog, contrary to the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and adjudged to pay the sum of 107. for his said offence. Given under the hands and seals of Sir Edmund Saunderson Prideaux, baronet; the Reverend Richard Lewis the younger, clerk; Edward Guppy and Matthew Liddon, esquires, being commissioners acting in the execution of the acts relating to assessed taxes for the said district of Colyton, in the said county of Devon. "EDMUND S. PRIDEAUX. "RICH. LEWIS, JUN. "EDWARD GUPPY. "MATTHEW LIDDON." It was objected, on the trial of the appeal, that this conviction was bad on the face of it, inasmuch as it did not appear thereby that any information or complaint of the offence having been committed within the district where the commissioners acted had been made to them or any one of them before they summoned the person accused to appear before them; neither did it appear thereby that they or any one of them had summoned the person accused to appear before them within three calendar months after the offence was committed. The information had been made to a single commissioner of assessed taxes, (not being a justice of the peace), and the summons issued by him alone. The conviction was signed by him and three other commissioners. These facts were also made grounds of objection. 1846. The QUEEN v. GRIFFIN. 1846. The QUEEN v. GRIFFIN. The sessions overruled all the objections, and confirmed the conviction. The question for the opinion of this Court is, whether the conviction was invalid on any of the grounds above mentioned. Greenwood, in support of the conviction.--There are two objections to this conviction. 1. That no information appears on the face of it to have been made to the convicting magistrates before the issuing of the summons, or any summons issued within three calendar months after the commission of the offence. 2. That the information was laid before, and the summons issued by one commissioner only of assessed taxes, (not being a justice of the peace), though the conviction was signed by him and three other persons. To the first objection, on which probably not much reliance will be placed, it is a sufficient answer that the conviction exactly follows the form given in the 52 Geo. 3, c. 93, sched. (L.), rule 15. As to the second: the 13th rule of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 93, sched. (L.), provides, that "it shall be lawful forany two commissioners for executing this act, or for any one justice of the peace of the county, &c. wherein any offence mentioned in the schedule shall be committed, such justice being also a commissioner for executing this act," upon information to him or them, " to summon the person accused, and to proceed to hear and determine the matter in a summary way." Subsequently the General Conviction Act, 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, passed, by the 2nd section of which it is enacted, "that, in all cases where two or more justices, deputy-lieutenants, or others are authorised and required to hear and determine any complaint, one justice, deputy-lieutenant, or such other person shall be competent to receive the original information or complaint, and to issue the summons or warrant requiring the parties to appear before two or more justices of the peace, deputy lieutenants, or others, as the case may be." Under the latter act, therefore, it seems clear that one commissioner had the power to do what under the former act could only be done by two, and that the summons in this case was issued by competent authority. Jones v. Gurdon (a) will be relied on. There, however, the person by whom the summons was issued was no party to the conviction, which distinguishes that case from the present. Merivale and Cornish, contrà.-The second objection is fatal. It is a mistake to suppose that the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, repeals former statutes which prescribe particular modes of conviction. It has no such effect, but was passed with reference to some doubts which existed as to whether an information may be laid before one justice only, where the conviction must be the act of two: Paley on Convictions, p. 23, 3rd ed.; Dalton, c. 6. The former act, therefore, was left untouched as to that part of it which concerns convictions by commissioners of assessed taxes not being justices of the peace, and two commissioners are still necessary. The words "or others," in the 2nd section of the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, must mean others ejusdem generis as those previously specified, and commissioners of assessed taxes are not mentioned: Kitchen v. Shaw (b), Sandiman v. Breach (c). Lord DENMAN, C. J.-I think that the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, does not repeal the 52 Geo. 3, c. 93, and that the objection is fatal. PATTESON, J.-It seems to me that Mr. Merivale's interpretation is the right one, and that the 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, applies to those cases where power is given to two (a) 2 Q. B. R. 600. (b) 6 A. & E. 729. (c) 7 B. & C. 100. 1846. The QUEEN v. GRIFFIN. 1846. The QUEEN v. GRIFFIN, justices to hear and determine. In those cases it might be doubtful whether one only could receive the information; by this act he may: but that does not apply to cases where the statute itself, which gives power to two to hear and determine, has a distinct provision that two are to receive the information. WILLIAMS, J., concurred. Conviction quashed. June 3. The 6 & 7 Vict. c. 36, exempts from liability THIS The QUEEN v. Pocock. was an appeal by Thomas Pocock, assessed to a rate made on the 4th March, 1845, by the trustees to the poor and of the south district of the parish of St. George the other rates, land, houses, and buildings belonging to any societies instituted for the purpose of science, literature, or the fine arts exclusively, provided that such society shall be supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions, and shall not, and by its laws may not, make any dividend, gift, division, or bonus in money unto or between any of its members, and provided such society shall obtain the certificate of the barrister appointed to certify the rules of friendly societies. A society was established for promoting the education of the labouring classes. By its rules a school is to be maintained to educate children, to support and train up young persons for supplying teachers. Certain officers and a committee are to be appointed, by whom the affairs of the society are to be managed. No member of the committee is to receive any pecuniary benefit from the society, nor is any dividend, &c., in money or otherwise, to be made to any of the members. In the normal school for the instruction of teachers lectures are given in grammar, &c., and there is a school of design and a model school for children. The society is supported in part by annual voluntary contributions, but the children admitted to the model school pay a small sum weekly for instruction, and the teachers in the normal school pay something towards their board; but these payments do not amount to the actual expense incurred :- Held, that such society is not established for the purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts, within the statute, and therefore not exempt from rateability. Sect. 6 gives an appeal to any person rated against the certificate of the barrister within four calendar months next after the first assessment of such rate made after such certificate shall have been filed, or within four calendar months next after the first assessment of such rate made after such exemption shall have been claimed by such society:Held, that, as the act points out two distinct periods within which an appeal may be entered, an appeal within the latter period was in time. |