1845.

The QUEEN

บ.

The Justices of

LINDSEY.

ар

the right of appeal to a party aggrieved by the acts of
the commissioners. It was contended, that the clause
taking away the certiorari must, from this collocation,
have been intended to apply only to these cases where
the proceedings have been taken in a summary way
before justices, and not to proceedings on appeal to the
quarter sessions. But, on a review of the act, it ap-
pears to me, that the clause must be considered as ap-
plicable generally to all proceedings under the act
without distinction; or otherwise this anomaly would
happen, that an order might be removed against which
there had been an appeal, but one against which there
had been no appeal would not be removable. For
this reason, it appears to me, that the intention of the
Legislature was to take away the certiorari equally in
the two cases, and, therefore, this rule must be dis-
charged.
Rule discharged.

June 7th.

Where a board

The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of LAMBETH.

THIS

was an appeal against an order of two justices of guardians is (dated 21st November, 1843) for the removal of Jane

established for

the manage. ment of the

poor in a single parish under

the provisions of the 4 & 5

Will. 4, c. 76,
s. 39, a notice
of chargeability
of a pauper

the guardians is valid.

and Margaret Leary from the parish of Lambeth, in the county of Surrey, to the parish of St. Martin-in-theFields, in the city and liberty of Westminster in the county of Middlesex. The sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case.

The parish of Lambeth was constituted a union of sent by three of itself with a separate board of guardians of the poor under stat. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 39, by an order of the poor-law commissioners, bearing date 19th November, 1835. The notice of chargeability was signed by three persons "guardians of the poor of the parish of Lambeth." On the hearing of the appeal an objection was made by the appellants to this notice of chargeability, on

the ground that it was not signed by the overseers of the poor of the parish of Lambeth, but by three of the guardians. The sessions were of opinion that the objection was valid, and quashed the order subject to the opinion of this Court on a case. The question for the opinion of this Court was, whether the notice of chargeability ought to have been signed by the guardians or the overseers. If the Court should be of opinion that the signature by the former was sufficient, the order of sessions was to be quashed and the order of removal confirmed. If the notice ought to have been signed by the overseers, the order of sessions was to stand, and the order of removal to be quashed.

Charnock (Wortley was with him), in support of the order of sessions.-The question arises under the 79th section of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, which provides that no poor person shall be removed until twenty-one days after a notice in writing of his being chargeable, accompanied by a copy of the order of removal, shall have been sent by the overseers or guardians of the parish obtaining such order, or any three or more of such guardians, to the overseers of the parish to which the pauper is to be removed. The term "guardians of the parish" there used must refer to such guardians as are appointed under the 22 Geo. 3, c. 83 (Gilbert's Act), the 7th section of which provides that every guardian appointed under that act is to have "all the powers and authorities given to overseers of the poor by any other act or acts, and shall. to all intents and purposes, except with regard to the making and collecting of rates, be an overseer of the poor for the parish or township for which he shall be so appointed guardian." Guardians, however, of an union, whether consisting of several parishes, or of a single parish established under the 39th section of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, are not overseers of the parish, and

1845.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of
LAMBETH.

1845.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of

are incapacitated from acting as such by the 38th section. Sect. 81 uses the same words as sect. 79 in reference to the persons who are to send notice and LAMBETH. grounds of appeal, and it has been decided that the notice of appeal must be signed by a majority of the parish officers; Rex v. The Justices of Warwickshire (a), Rex v. The Justices of Derbyshire (b); and that a guardian is not a parish officer for such a purpose: Regina v. The Justices of Surrey (c). [Williams, J.-In that case several different parishes formed one union.] The same principle applies where guardians are appointed for single parishes. They have exactly the same powers as guardians of united parishes in relation to the relief of the poor. In the 72nd section the terms "guardian of a "union" and "guardian of a parish" are used in contradistinction; and the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 57, s. 6, which, in unions, gave to the board of guardians the same powers in certain cases as were given to overseers by the 9 Geo. 4, c. 40, was unnecessary if the guardians had the same powers as overseers already. Much inconvenience would arise if both guardians and overseers were competent to give notice of appeal, as there might frequently be a conflict of opinion between the two sets of officers in the same parish. That inconvenience will be avoided if the word "guardians" in sect. 79 is restricted to guardians under Gilbert's Act.

66

Bovill, contrà.-In Regina v. The Justices of Surrey(a), Patteson, J., in his judgment says, that the word guardian" (as used in the 81st section) of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76), "does not mean guardian of a union, but of a parish appointed under special circumstances mentioned in the Poor-law Amendment Act." The

(a) Antè, Vol. 1, p.
(b) 6 A. & E. 873.

124.

(c) Id. 885.

(d) Antè, Vol. 1, p. 124.

guardian, therefore, spoken of in the 81st section is contrasted in that case with a guardian appointed under the 39th section; and, as the contrast was drawn for the purpose of shewing that the former could not send a notice of appeal, it seems to follow that the latter is competent to do so. The fallacy on the other side consists in speaking of this parish as a union, which it is not. The 22 Geo. 3, c. 83, always mentions "guardians of the poor" and "guardians of the parish" as synonymous; while the 41st section of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, refers to "guardians of a parish" as well as "guardians of a union," shewing that there is a distinction between them. Besides, the 79th section does not require such notices to be signed, but only sent: Regina v. Westbury (a).

Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We should like to hear the next case before we decide this.

1845.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of

LAMBETH.

The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of ST. MARY, SOUTH

AMPTON.

ON
appeal against an order of two justices for the
removal of Ann Whitlocke, and her two children, from
the parish of St. Mary, in the town and county of
Southampton, to the parish of Botley, in the county

June 7th.

Where a local act united several parishes into one dis

trict for the

purpose of relieving, and maintaining,

of Southampton, the sessions quashed the order, "on the ground, that the notice of chargeability was not employing the signed and sent by persons proper and competent in said several

poor of the

parishes from

one common

fund, and vested the care and management of the poor in a board of guardians, enacting that no appeal should be prosecuted or defended by the churchwardens or overseers of the several parishes without an order of the guardians; but that nothing in the act should alter the laws respecting the removal of the poor existing between the parishes within and without the district:-Held, in the case of an order of removal to a parish without the district, obtained on the complaint of the churchwardens and overseers of one of the united parishes, that a notice of chargeability sent by three of the guardians created by the act was invalid.

(a) Antè, Vol. 1, p. 33.

1845.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of

SOUTHAMP

TON.

law to sign and send the same," subject to the opinion of this Court on a case.

The order of removal purported to be made on the comST. MARY, plaint of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of St. Mary, Southampton, and was directed to them. The notice of chargeability was headed "Parish of St. Mary, in the Town and County of Southampton." It stated that the paupers had become chargeable to that parish, and was signed by three persons, "Guardians of the Poor of the united Parishes of Southampton." The parishes of the town and county of the town of Southampton, including the parish of St. Mary, are six in number; and, by a local act, (13 Geo. 3, c. 1(a)), were united into one district for the purpose of maintaining, relieving, and employing the poor of the said several parishes from one common fund; and there is within the said district, by virtue of the said act, a corporation of guardians, under the name of "The guardians of the poor within the town and county of the town of Southampton," having perpetual succession and a common seal, to whom the care and management of the poor of the said several parishes is, by virtue of and according and subject to the provisions of the said act, committed, and conducted at a house fitted up for the reception of

(a) Sect. 45 enacts,
"that no
appeal shall be made, prose-
cuted, or defended by any of the
churchwardens or overseers of
the said several parishes for the
time being, touching the settle
ment of any poor person or per-
sons whatsoever, without an or-
der of the guardians at one of
their courts for that special pur-
pose to be made."

Sect. 46 provides, "that neither
this act nor anything herein con-

tained shall be construed, deem

ed, or taken to alter or change the laws now subsisting respecting the removal of the poor between any parish or place without the district hereby united, and any or either of the parishes within the same; but such laws shall continue and be in force, anything hereinbefore contained to the contrary notwithstanding save and except in the case of certificates and appeals upon such removals as hereinbefore mentioned."