Page images

a mandamus was directed to (he justices to give costs to the party in whose favour the appeal had been determined. But upon the return, the Court held it reasonable lor them to have the power of judging whether costs should be allowrd or not, and quashed the writ of mandamus. 2 Bolt, Consl's td. 867.

And the sessions cannot order costs on a mere ad journment of an appeal.—Thus in the K. v. Stansfidd,Ea. 16 Gio. 2,.lbe sessions adjourned the appeal to the next quarter sessions, and ordered four guineas costs to the appellants: which order was quashed as to the costs, for the sessions cannot give costs on a mere adjournment of the appeal without hearing it. Bur. rote's Selt. Cos. 205. Maintenance ti Also by 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. s. 9. 1 if the sessions, upon am appeal tw iiUuKtd. 4 before them concerning the settlement of any poor person,

* shall determine in favourof the appellant, that such poor per'*on was unduly removed, then the sa.-sc quarter sessions shall

* award to such appellant so much money as shall appear 4 to have been reasonably paid by the parish or place on whose

* behalf such appeal was made, for the relief of such poot ', person, between the time of such undue removal and the de. 'termination of such appeal; the said money so awarded to bo 'recovered in the same manner as costs and charges upoa ail 'appeal according to the statute 8 & 9 Will. 3.'

And the court will grant a mandamus to the sessions to allow these charges; for in St. Mary's Nottingham v. Kirklivgton, Ea. 3 Geo. 3, it was moved for a mandamus to be directed 1* the justices of peace of (he town and county of Nottingha»y commanding them to allow the parish of Kirklington the et. pensc and charges their officers had been put to, in keeping a poor person from the time of his removal to the parish of Kiiklington till the time that the order of removal was discharged by the sessions, upon the appeal of the parish of Kirklington from it.—By The Court. This is wliat is ordered by the statute 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. s. 9, and has been allowed in (he case of the K. v. the Inhabitants oj Boston.—A mandamus vtai granted. 2 Sess. Cos. 67.

But the sessions cannot direct the costs of maintaining the pauper to attend the event of another supposed appeal; for in the A', T. Great Chart, Mic. 16 Geo. 2, an order of sessions quashing an insufficient order of justices for the removal of a pauper from the parish of Great Chart, to the parish of Ae*» ningtun, concluded thus: It is further ordered by this court that the costs of maintenance of the said S M, since the time of the removal to the said parish of Kcnnington, shall abidt the event of the cause; in case the pari\hof Great Chart shell think profit r by another order to remove the said S M to the taiil parish of Kennington, and the inhabitants of Kennigton appeal to this court from the same.By The Court. IM fiat part of the order which directs the costs of maintaining tif piiiper to attend the event of the cause, be quashed. Buriow't Ml. Cos. 19*.

The sessions hare no authority to make an original order of »utfc«'tj removal; for the statutes' giving an appeal against the order of'' c sc,"unsremoval, only authorize the sessions to confirm or quash' the order.—Thus in the K. v. Bond, Mic. 2 Jac. 2, an order *as made at the quarter sessions to remove a pauper to the place of his last settlement; and it wai quashed, for the Court he!d that the sessions could not make an original order of reBoral. 2 Shoaer, 503.

Therefore the sessions have no power to confirm an ord: r of removal,unless it be on an appeal. —Thus in the A', T. Lever' tn;ton,Tr. 21 11 Geo. 2, two justices removed a man and his wife from Sutton St. Mary's to Leverington; this order To not appealed from; but the sessions made an order in confirmation of the said original order: this confirmatory or. let was quashed by the court of King's Bench, as being a TOi lontary, and as it were extra-judicial act of the s -ssions to ttdfrro an order that was not complained of; andSir Ja nes Bur: wer'ays, that the very same thing was done in the case of W/htaung ». St. Michael's, because the order of sessions confeia? the original order was not made upon appeal, for which fason it was agreed by the Court and counsel to be a void order. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 276.

So in Ea. i) WW. 3, an order made by two justices of the peace for settling a poor person, was quashed by the sessions; *t?becauscit did not appear that it came before them by way of *ppe*l, without which they hare no jurisdiction, this order of >*s-ions was quashed. Sulk. 470.

And upon the same principle the sessions, on an appeal from «n order of removal, cannot adjudge the pauper's settlement '"Win a third parish.—Thus in the K. v. Amner. Mic. 8 Will. J; i man was removed from Teirtnt Keinston to 'Virrin CraicfWj anil upon appeal, it appearing that he was last settled >t Jmner, the sessions discharged Tirrin Crawford, and ordered him to be removed to Amner. — Hut By The Court. This most be quashed, because this is to make an original. order, "hich the justices at sessions have no power to do; they might hare reversed the first order, and ordered the party to be carried back to Teirent Keinston; but they cool 1 not remove to Amner, a third parish, which was no ways concerned in the order of appeal; and if they are really chargeable TO it, it must be on the complaint of Terrent Keinston to two jastices of peace. Salk.il5. Neither can the sessions, at a subsequent sessions make an i review a case on which they determined at a preceding 'Ainu.—Thus in the A', v. Cuckjield, Hit. 8 Will. 3, a panel by order removed from Cuckfield to Bucksteait, and 'hu order b.'in^ appealed from, was confirmed at the sessions; ''the session* after that made an order of review, and quashed the former order of sessions, because made by surprise.—But BY TH-: Court. The order of review must bo quashed, ( the justices have; no power after the first sessions. M 47


lint the sessions may niake a new order YacatiDg a lora order, at any time during the sa-ne sessions.. .Thus iu St A drew llolbornv. St. C>ement Danes, M'C. 3 Ann, the sessid made an order, and afterwards (lie same sessions vacated it a subsequent order, and a certiorari being brought, both ord

■were returned thereon And by Hull. Ch. J. You. sho

not hare returned the vacated order, but only the litter. I is, as if we, disliking our judgment, should the same term mi an entry of two ditltrent judgmeuts, and return both upo writ of error, which ought not to be: the sessions is all day, and (he justices may alter their judgment at any I while it continues. Salk. 494.

And the sessions may refer the consideration of an ay with the consent of the parties.-—Tims in the K. y.the< tices of Northampton, Tr. 17 G'o. 3, the sessions referr^ consideration of an appeal against a poor rale to threej out of sessions: this reference was made with the sent of the parties: the sessions afterwards adopted the o',ii of the referees, and made an order accordingly- It was m 'to quash (heorder of Sessions, on this ground that theses

had no authority (o 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: the not warranted to delegate their authority ; but if they acted the consent of the parties, I think they have done very i and we never stiller the party who consented to the rcfc| by coming here to dot it aside; and I think it sufficient J attornics contented and attended this reference. 6"a.'«| Cases, SO.

And if the justices present at sessions arc equally d'n't opinion, so that no order can be made, they ought to U the appeal, or to continue it over to a subsequent set till by the coming of more justices tl e matter may be dt Thus in the K. v. the Justices of Westmoreland, Tr. 8 G upon an appeal to the bessions upon an order of twoj for removing a poor family, the justices were equally d 60 no deterruiealion was made, nor the appeal adjuur mandamus was therefore directed to all thjc justices county in general to proceed on the appeal; and it wa that 'the justices ought in this case to have adjouri * app. al, or continued it over to a .subsequent session,' till coming of more justices it might have been, determined. Cat. 1!'3.

But if after all, flic justices should stiircoutinuc to be divided in opinion, as may sometimes happen, the proper to obtain a Gnal determination of the matter seems to the parties to consent (hat judgment be pronounced, sui the opinion of (he judges of assize, or Court oi" King's oa a special cast- to be stated for that purpose.

The pauper removed m^y appeal against flie order aa well aj Who may ap

the parish.—Thai in the K. v. Hartfirld, Eu. 4 IFi'i & Mar. I'"1-
two justices removed a man from the parish of llartfirld to the
parish of Frampfield, from which order the pauper himself ami
not the parish appealed. It was objected that the party him-
self caunot appeal, because the appeal is onlv given to the

parish aggrieved But By The Whole Col n r. The party may

appeal as well as the parish. Carth, S'i'i.

And the order of sessions need not expressly state that it is on the appeal of the parly grieved; for in the K. v. Almtn. fasj, Tr. 4 Geo. 1, an order of two just ires waj> quas lied at sessions upon appeal, without saying, at thn appcid of the parly grieved; and this was objected, in order to quash the «rder 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 oiersecrs.—The Cocut were inclined to qua*h the order for this fault, till they w.'re informed the precedents were most of (htm so; and for that reason, arid that only, as the Ch. J. fedared, the order was confirmed. 1 S'range, 9G.

According to the stat. 9 Cr/ o. 1. c. 7 *, no appeal from any N\,t|ee 0f Bp. Order of removal is to be proceeded upon, unless reasonable i>eal. swfce be given by the parish officers who .ipp^al 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 staled rules to go by, it isproper whenever an appeal is made from an order of remoral to give such notice as the practice -of tne particular sections to which the appeal is to be made requires.

But although reasonable notice may not have been given, the fcssions cannot for this quash the order of removal: it is only 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 appe it,' purE*Uf to (he stat. 9 Geo. 1. But By m, C uur. The o.der of sessions must be quashed, because due iiotice uoi being given was no reason to quash the order of two justices though it might be a reason to adjourn the appeal. Foley, -C t.

Neithvr can the sessions refuse to receive the appeal on the ground that due notice was not given; for the notice relates fly to the hearing, and not to the receiving the appeal .— Thus' 'nine K. v. fAe Justites cj Gloucestershire, Ea. 19 Gto. 3, n» »n application for a mandamus to compel the justices oi the quarter sessions in Gloucestershire to receive an appeal from 13 order of removal, it appeared from the affidavits on whicti the rule was obtained, that the examination of the piuper *as taken in August, the order of removal dated the 1-ith of «kenbcr following, aud the sessions where the appeal was

[ocr errors]

tendered, held on the 19th of January, in the ensuinjyear]

* that no notice of appeal had been served' (for which the reason assigned was, that the appellants had not been able to gel their witnesses ready till it was too late to give such notice) that the Court had been moved to receive the appeal, and ad journ it till the following sessions, and had refused....In Court were clearly opinion that the justices ought to have n ceived the appeal Mandamus granted 1 Doug. 8ro. ed. 181

And therefore they are bouud to receive an appeal again an order of removal, although no notice has been given.. Thus in the A', v. Jluntingdomliire, Ea. 23 Geo. 3, upon at moval of a pauper by an order of two justices, the notice appeal to the quarter sessions was served upon a Sunday hadt] appellants deferred the service of their notice till another di they would not have been in time to have given, under I practice established in that court, reasonable notice to the.I spondeuts for the purpose of trying the merits of appeaL 'The Sessions (being of opinion that the party aggrieved i not at any rate or for any purpose entitled to appeal, i less the prescribed notice bad previously been given to the spondents; and also that a service of a notice upon a Sund not being a legal service, there had not in point of law bi any notice) refused to hear, adjourn, or enter the appeal, mandamus being moved for, to compel the justices torn* and hear the appeal,it was granted,no cause being shewn agai the rule. Cold. Cas. 283.

But although the sessions are bound to receive the ap[ at the next sessions, yet they arc not obliged to adjourn hearing thereof, if they are satisfied that the appellants sufficient time to come prepared to try it, and to give notici the respondents.—Thus in the K. v. the Justices of North Riding of Yorkshire, Ea. 29 Geo. 3, a mandamus moved for, to compel the defendants to receive, hear, and termiue an appeal against an order of removal. The order made on the 26th of November, and executed on the 28lh: appellants attended the next quarter sessions, held on the 1 of Jan. following, and moved the Court for leave 'to 1(

• the appeal, and to respite the hearing thereof,' lg then next general quarter sessions. The following entry made by the sessions: "For as much as it appears to "Court that there has been sufficient time since the remi 14 of the paupers for the appellants to give notice, ando '• prepared to try this appeal at this sessions, and no a "shewn why they did not proceed accordingly; it is ordi "that the motion for lodging the same, and respiting "hearing to the next quarter sessions, be rejected"'.-.! CotKT were of opinion that the justices had not acted vr< fur the motion was iu effect to adjourn the appeal and it evidently the intention of the parties not to enter the apn unless the Court would adjourn it: the justices are to ji of the reasonableness of the time; and in some counties!

« PreviousContinue »