66 "erétion shall be thought most reasonable and just, to be paid by the church-wardens, " overseers; or any other person against whom * such Appeal shall be determined, or bý thẻ 66 46 person that did give such notice; and if the “person ordered to pay such costs shall live "out of the jurisdiction of the said Court, aný “ Justice where such person shall inhabit, shall, upon request to him made, and a true copý "of the order for the payment of such costs, produced, and proved by some credible wit nesses upon oath; by warrant under his "hand and seal, cause the money mentioned “in that order to be levied by distress and sale of the goods of the person who is ordered "to pay the same, and if no such distress can "be had, he shall commit such person to the "common gaol for twenty days." .... And by 9 Geo. 1, c. 7, “if the Court shall “determine in favour of the appellant, that "such poor person was unduly removed, then "the same Quarter Session shall award to ** such appellant so much money as shall ap pear to have been reasonably paid by the pa"rish or place on whose behalf such Appeal "was made, for the relief of such poor per son, between the time of such undue re“moval, and the determination of such Ap 66 peal: the said money so awarded to be "recovered in the same manner as costs and "charges upon an Appeal according to the 8 “ and 9 Will. 3.” And the Court of B. R. will grant a mandamus to the Sessions to allow these costs.* form. On these statutes it has been determined, Defects of A First, that by defects in matters of form," which the Justices are empowered to mend, are intended merely defects or mistakes in form apparent upon the face of the order, but not matters of substance.t It has been found impossible to lay down precise rules for determining the exact boundary between matters of form, and those of substance, and on that account this regulation of the stat. was, on one occasion, called by Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. almost a dead letter."‡ The most correct definition of matters of form is, perhaps," that which appears palpable, without examination."§ . Secondly, that the Appeal given is to all Who may persons aggrieved, and therefore the pauper, appeal. as well as the parish, may appeal. But the Sessions cannot make an original order, having no cognizance but on Appeal ;¶ and on that principle can only notice the parties before the court on the Appeal, and can * 2 Sess. Ca. 67. 2 Bott. (Const. edit.) 828. Burr. S. C. 163. | Carthew's R. 222. Burr. S. C. 276. to the Sessi ons of the not decide that the pauper's settlement is in a third parish.* Appeal to be Thirdly, The Appeal must be to the Sessions of the county, and not of any corporation, because otherwise it would be an Appeal ab eodem ad eundem.† County. The next Session. Fourthly, That "nert Sessions" means next practicable Session; and therefore that each case must, in some degree, be governed by its own particular circumstances. As a general rule, then, can only be derived by means of analogy from a source of so much uncertainty, the following cases are given by way of example. ' Thus, in Rex v. the East Riding of Yorkshire, Ea. 19 Geo. 3, a mandamus was moved for, to receive an Appeal. The order of removal had been made by the two Justices on the 22d. September, but the pauper was not removed till the 5th of October. Hull, the place to which the pauper had been removed from Whitby, is 60 miles from Northallerton, where the Session began on the 6th of October; at that Session no Appeal was entered ;—and at the Epiphany Session following, which began on the 12th of January following, the parish charged offered an Appeal; the Justices refu sed to hear it, thinking themselves bound by the words of the statute, which says, "that * Salk. 475. Burr. S. C. 592.-2 Bott. 724 persons aggrieved may appeal to the Justices of Peace at the next Quarter Sessions." The COURT said, "that by next Session the stat of Car. 2, must have meant the next possible Session; and that here it was impossible for the appellants to lodge their Appeal at the Michaelmas Session."* So in Rex v, the Justices of Herefordshire, Mic. 30 Geo. 3, a mandamus was moved for, to compel the Justices to receive an Appeal against an order of removal. The order was made on Friday the 18th of April on the 19th the panper was removed, and on the Tuesday following, the 22nd, the Easter Session was held at Hereford, 20 miles distant from the parish to which the party was removed; at which Session it is the practice not to receive any Appeal after the Tuesday morning. The parish not having appealed at the Easter Session, the Justices at the Midsummer Session refused to receive the Appeal, because not made at the next Quarter Session: the foundation of this application was, that as the officers of the parish to which the pauper was removed, had not sufficient time to convene a meeting of the inhabitants, in order to take their opinion upon the subject, whether there were any grounds for the Appeal, the Midsummer Session was the next possible Session. Dough R. 183. Quarter But by Lord Kenyon, C. J. "The words of the There have been many other, and even later, cases determined on similar grounds.† but these are sufficient to establish the principle as well as to lay down a rule for discrimination among cases possessing features of general similarity. .. 1t must however be further observed also, that "Sessions" means Quarter Sessions, and not * 3 Term R. 504. † R. v. J. of Dorsetshire.-15 East's R. 200.-R. v. J. of Sussex.-Id. 206. |