paper to attend the event of the cause, be quashed. Burrow's dett. Cus. 194.

The authority

The sessions have no authority to make an original order of removal; for the statutes' giving an appcal against the order off the sessions. moval, only authorize the sessions to confirm or quash the order. Thus in the K. v. Bond, Mic. 2 Jac. 2, an order was made at the quarter sessions to remove a pauper to the pace of his last settlement; and it was quashed, for the Court held that the sessions could not make an original order of reDoval. 2 Shower, 503.

Therefore the sessions have no power to confirm an order Vremoval, unless it be on an appeal. Thus in the K. v. LeverMarton, Tr. 21 & 22 Geo. 2, two justices removed a man and wife from Sutton St. Mary's to Leverington; this order was not appealed from; but the sessions made an order in trmation of the said original order: this confirmatory or der was quashed by the court of King's Bench, as being a vo Intary, and as it were extra-judicial act of the sessions to coin order that was not complained of; and Sir James BurToy, that the very same thing was done in the case of Gaddling v. St. Michael's, because the order of sessions confrang the original order was not made upon appeal, for which it was agreed by the Court and counsel to be a void or. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 276.

in Ea. 9 Will. 3, an order made by two justices of the te for settling a poor person, was quashed by the sessions; because it did not appear that it came before them by way of peal, without which they have no jurisdiction, this order of ons was quashed. Salk. 479.

upon the same principle the sessions, on an appeal from der of removal, cannot adjudge the pauper's settlement na third parish.Thus in the K. v. Amner, Mic. 8 Will. man was removed from Terrent Keinston to Tirrin Craw; and upon appeal, it appearing that he was last settled Amner, the sessions discharged Tirrin Crawford, and orderhm to be removed to Amner.-But BY THE COURT. This t be quashed, because this is to make an original, order, the justices at sessions have no power to do; they might e reversed the first order, and ordered the party to be cartack to Terrent Keinston; but they could not remove party to Amner, a third parish, which was no ways coned in the order of appeal; and if they are really chargeaule t, it must be on the complaint of Terrent Keinston to two of peace. Salk. 475. ter can the sessions, at a subsequent sessions make an to review a case on which they determined at a preceding -Thus in the K. v. Cuckfield, Hil. 8 Will. 3, a panby order removed from Cuckfield to Buckstead, and order being appealed from, was confirmed at the sessions ; the sessions after that made an order of review, and quashed former order of sessions, because made by surprise. - But

BY THE COURT. The order of review must be quashed, for the justices have no power after the first sessions. Salk 477

But the sessions may make a new order vacating a former order, at any time during the same sessions... Thus in St An drew Holborn v. St. Clement Danes, Mic. 3 Ann, the session made an order, and afterwards the same sessions vacated it bị a subsequent order, and a certiorari being brought, both order were returned thereon. ---And by Holt, Ch. J. You shoul not have returned the vacated order, but only the latter. Th is, as if we, disliking our judgment, should the same term mak an entry of two diferent judgments, and return both upon. writ of error, which ought not to be: the sessions is all o day, and the justices may alter their judgment at any ti while it continues. Salk. 494.

And the sessions may refer the consideration of an app with the consent of the parties.---Thus in the K. v. the Ji tices of Northampton, Tr. 17 Gro. 3, the sessions referred consideration of an appeal against a poor rate to threej tices out of sessions: this reference was made with the c sent of the parties: the sessions afterwards adopted the opi of the referees, and made an order accordingly. It was m ' to quash the order of sessions, on this ground that the sess had no authority to make such a reference... But by Mansfield Ch. J. If they did this of their own accord, out the consent of the parties, it cannot be supported: they not warranted to delegate their authority; but if they acted the consent of the parties, I think they have done very rj and we never suffer the party who consented to the refer by coming here to set it aside; and I think it sufficient i attornies consented and attended this reference. Calde Cases, 30.

And if the justices present at sessions are equally divid opinion, so that no order can be made, they ought to ad the appeal, or to continue it over to a subsequent ses till by the coming of more justices te matter may be de Thus in the K. v. the Justices of Westmoreland, Tr. 8 G upon an appeal to the sessions upon an order of two je for removing a poor family, the justices were equally di so no determination was made, nor the appeal adjourn mandamus was therefore directed to all the justices county in general to proceed on the appeal; and it was that the justices ought in this case to have adjourn appeal, or continued it over to a subsequent session,' till coming of more justices it might have been determined. Cas. 193.

But if after all, the justices should still continue to be divided in opinion, as may sometimes happen, the proper to obtain a final determination of the matter seems to the parties to consent that judgment be pronounced, sub the opinion of the judges of assize, or Court of King's op a special case to be stated for that purpose.

The pauper removed may appeal against the order as well as Who may ap• the parish.Thus in the K. v. Hartfield, Ea. 4 Wil & Mar, peal. two justices removed a man from the parish of Hartfield to the parish of Frampfield, from which order the pauper himself and not the parish appealed. It was objected that the party him. self cannot appeal, because the appeal is only given to the parish aggrieved. But BY THE WHOLE COURT. The party may appeal as well as the parish. Carth. 292.

And the order of sessions need not expressly state that it is on the appeal of the party grieved; for in the K. v. Alminbury, Tr. 4 Geo, 1, an order of two justices was quashed at sessions upon appeal, without saying, at the appeal of the party grieved; and this was objected, in order to quash the order of sessions, and compared to the case of a complaint that a man is likely to become chargeable; which has been held ill, because the complaint must be by the churchwardens and overseers. THE COURT were inclined to quash the order for this fault, till they were informed the precedents were most of them so; and for that reason, and that only, as the Ch. J. dedared, the order was confirmed. 1 Strange, 96.

According to the stat. 9 Gro. 1. c. 7 *, uo appeal from any Notice of ap order of removal is to be proceeded upon, unless reasonable peal. notice be given by the parish officers who appeal to the parish officers of the place from whence the pauper was removed; and the reasonableness of which notice is to be adjudged by the sessions. Now as all courts have stated rules to go by, it is proper whenever an appeal is made from an order of removal to give such notice as the practice of the particular ses sions to which the appeal is to be made requires,

But although reasonable notice may not have been given, the Bessions cannot for this quash the order of removal: it is only a ground for their adjourning the appeal... Thus in Tr. 10 Geo. 1, the sessions quashed an order of justices, and assigned for a reason, that there was not due notice given of the appeal,' pursuant to the stat. 9 Geo. 1. But BY THE COURT. The order of sessions must be quashed, because due notice not being given was no reason to quash the order of two justices, though it might be a reason to adjourn the appeal. Foley, 261.

Neither can the sessions refuse to receive the appeal on the ground that due notice was not given; for the notice relates only to the hearing, and not to the receiving the appeal. Thus in the K. v. the Justices of Gloucestershire, Eu. 19 Geo. 3, on an application for a mandamus to compel the justices of the quarter sessions in Gloucestershire to receive an appeal from an order of removal, it appeared from the affidavits on which the rule was obtained, that the examination of the pauper was taken in August, the order of removal dated the 12th of November following, and the sessions where the appeal was

See p. 400 supra,

tendered, held on the 12th of January, in the ensuing year; that no notice of appeal had been served' (for which the reason assigned was, that the appellants had not been able to get their witnesses ready till it was too late to give such notice); that the Court had been moved to receive the appeal, and adjourn it till the following sessions, and had refused....THE COURT were clearly opinion that the justices ought to have re. ceived the appeal.---Mandamus granted. 1 Doug. 8vo. ed. 191. And therefore they are bouud to receive an appeal against an order of removal, although no notice has been given.... Thus in the K. v. Huntingdonshire, Ea. 23 Geo. 3, upon a removal of a pauper by an order of two justices, the notice of appeal to the quarter sessions was served upon a Sundays had the appellants deferred the service of their notice till another day, they would not have been in time to have given, under the practice established in that court, reasonable notice to the respondents for the purpose of trying the merits of appeal.... THE SESSIONS (being of opinion that the party aggrieved was not at any rate or for any purpose entitled to appeal, unless the prescribed notice had previously been given to the respondents; and also that a service of a notice upon a Sunday, not being a legal service, there had not in point of law been any notice) refused to hear, adjourn, or enter the appeal....A mandamus being moved for, to compel the justices to receive and hear the appeal, it was granted, no cause being shewn against the rule. Cald. Cas. 283.

But although the sessions are bound to receive the appeal at the next sessions, yet they are not obliged to adjourn the hearing thereof, if they are satisfied that the appellants had sufficient time to come prepared to try it, and to give notice to the respondents.---Thus in the K. v. the justices of the North Riding of Yorkshire, Ea. 29 Geo. 3, a mandamus was moved for, to compel the defendants to receive, hear, and determine an appeal against an order of removal. The order was

made on the 26th of November, and executed on the 28th: the appellants attended the next quarter sessions, held on the 13th of Jan, following, and moved the Court for leave to lodge the appeal, and to respite the hearing thereof,' to the then next general quarter sessions. The following entry was made by the sessions: "For as much as it appears to this, "Court that there has been sufficient time since the removal "of the paupers for the appellants to give notice, and come "prepared to try this appeal at this sessions, and no cause

shewn why they did not proceed accordingly; it is ordered "that the motion for lodging the same, and respiting the "hearing to the next quarter sessions, be rejected"THE COURT were of opinion that the justices had not acted wrong, for the motion was in effect to adjourn the appeal; and it was evidently the intention of the parties not to enter the appeal, unless the Court would adjourn it: the justices are to judge of the reasonableness of the time; and in some counties they

establish a rule, regulating the time of notice; here it appears that the order of removal was executed on the 28th of November, so that there was sufficient time for the appellants to give netice, and to come prepared to try it; and the justices who are to judge of this thought so... Mandamus refused *. 3 Term Rep. 150.

must be made.

The words of the stat. 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30 t, are that the To what ses. appeal against any order of removal shall be determined at the sions appeal general or quarter sessions for the county, division, or riding, wherein the parish is situated; therefore the appeal against an arder of removal made by corporation, justices must be to the Bunty sessions, and not to that of the corporation....Thus in the K. Wendover, Ea. 13 Will. 3, two justices of St. Alban's reated a poor person to Wendover. Wendover appealed to essions at St. Alban's, where the order was confirmed..-.By COURT. The appeal ought to have been to the sessions of county, and not of the corporation; and as it was, it was rom non judice. Salk. 490.

Also in the case of Malden, Mic. 11 Ann. it was laid down
Parker Ch. J. that where there is a town corporate that

sions of its own, and the justices within that town ake an order there, if the parties will appeal, they must apto the county sessions, and not to their own sessions, for there would be an appeal ab eodem ad eundem, there bemay be, the same justices sitting who made the order. r. Sett. & Rem. 10.

So also in the K. v. East Donyland, Tr. 8 Geo. 3, two ices of the peace for the borough of Colchester made an or to remove three paupers from St. Giles in Colchester, to Eat Donyland in Esser; the parish of East Donyland ap

to the quarter sessions of the borough of Colchester, they confirmed the order, and stated a special case. It bjected, that the sessions had no jurisdiction; for that appeal ought to have been to the quarter sessions of the ty, and not of the borough. Against this it was urged, the parish of St. Giles were concluded from making this ction, by their having at this borough quarter sessions,

So also in the K. v. the Justices of Derbyshire, Mic. Ter. 32 Geo. act of inclosure having given an appeal to the next session sx months after the cause of complaint an appellant moved tert of sessions in due time to receive his appeal, and respite bearing of it till the next sessions :' this was refused by the , because the following sessions would not happen before the tion of the six months; a mandamus was moved for to comem to receive this appeal; but the above case of the K. v. the es of the North Riding of Yorkshire was mentioned, and the Dan were clear that the act was compulsory on the justices to rene the appeal, but not to respite it,' and they said, as this was a tissal motion, only to enter the appeal, in case the sessions old agree to respite the hearing,' they could not compel the vites to receive it afterwards. 4 Term Řep. 488.

+ See p. 399 supra.