Returning after removal. order, apparent upon the face of it, in not stating them to be But these statutes only affect those persons who return in a state of vagrancy....For in the K. v. Fillongley, Mic. 29 Geo. 3. the pauper was removed from the parish of Fillongley to the hamlet of Kinwalsey, and on the same day on which he was delivered with the said order of removal, he returned back to a tenement in Fillongley, of the yearly value of ten pounds and upwards, which he had before rented and resided on for some years, but without making any new agreement with his landlord: after residing thereon about three quarters of a year, he was again removed to Fillongley. An appeal was entered against the first order, but not prosecuted.—THE COURT were of opinion, that the pauper had a right to return, for that an order of removal only prevents a return in a state of vagran. cy. 2 Term Rep. 709. And the warrant committing a pauper who returns after an order of removal, must be on the stat. 17 Geo. 2. c. 5, and must pursue the words of the act.-Thus in Baldwin v. Blackmore, Eu. 31 Geo. 2, this was the case reserved at the assizes in an action for an assault upon, and false imprisonment of the plaintiff's wife. The case was as follows: The plaintiffs, Baldwin and his wife, were removed by order of two justices, from Marsden to Bank-newton: which order was not appealed from : afterwards, they (both of them) returned to Marsden without bringing any certificate. Of this, complaiut being made by the overscer in writing, and upon oath, to the defendant, who was a See these clauses more full, in p. 337 supra. juice of peace for the county, he issued his warrant to bring two paupers before him: who being accordingly brought, and the facts fully proved, upon oath, he committed both of them to the house of correction, until they should be discharged by due course of law.' The questions were, 1st, • Whether there ought to have been a previous conviction of vagrancy? 6 Whether the wife could be convicted of vagrancy, or be liable to be sent to the house of correction for returning with. out a certificate, as she only accompanied and resided with her husband?'-By lord Mansfield, who delivered the resoluof the Court. It is manifest that the justice did not act tionally wrong; and it is plain that the jury were of opinion, as appears by their giving only one shilling da The Court would gladly therefore have leaned towards ing this gentleman from suffering for what he had honestwithout any bad intention done, if they could have found justifiable by any legal excuse. But there is one fatal ob. tion to his proceeding which we cannot get over, ich puts all the other points out of the case; and that that the warrant of commitment is illegal. The legality of and at depends upon two acts of parliament, or at least ae of them; for there are two acts of parliament, upon which two this warrant must be founded, though it does appear upon which of the two the justice proceeded. These acts are 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12, (a law made before certi, under the late acts existed), and 17 Geo. 2, c. 5, (which sto persons returning without bringing such a certificate). this warrant is not within this former act of 13 & 14 Car. is the case itself within it. These persons did not go parish carrying with them a certificate of their being ints of their proper parish; nor is the commitment mad; he house of correction, there to be punished as a vagabond; to a public workhouse, there to be employed in work labour; as that statute directs; so that the warrant is at all agreeable to the directions of that act, which spethe particular manner of sending the offender to the se of correction, or to a publie workhouse: for it is only, main till discharged by due course of law.' Neither can arrant be good upon the latter act of 17 Geo. 2. c. 5, use, though this is indeed a commitment to the house of corwhich the latter act directs), yet it is to remain there charged by due course of law; whereas, by this act, the gitea to the justice is, to commit such offenders to the of correction, there to be kept to hard labour for any not exceeding one month. But this warrant is quite al; it is an indefinite commitment; not for a precise li time,' as this act expressly directs and requires. Therethe warrant of commitment is totally illegal, and conseatly the plaintiff is intitled to the damages that he ered. Burrow's Rep. 595. Aad a pauper who returns after an order of removal, cannot Notice to be givenof appeal. Sessions power to amend defects of form. And by 9 Geo. 1. c. 7, no appeal from any order of removal shall be proceeded upon unless reasonable NOTICE be given by the churchwardens or overseers of the parish or place who shall make such appeal, unto the churchwardens or over. 'seers of the parish or place from which the poor person shall 'be removed; the reasonableness of which notice shall be determined by the quarter sessions to which the appeal is made; and if it shall appear to them that reasonable time of notice was not given, then they shall adjourn the said appeal to the next quarter sessions, and then and there hear and determine 'the same.' s. 8. And by 5 Geo. 2. c. 19, on all appeals to the sessions against the judgments or orders of any justices of peace; the 'sessions shall cause any defect of form that shall be found in any such judgments or orders, to be rectified and amended without any cost to the parties concerned; and after such ' amendment shall proceed to hear, examine, and consider, the 'truth and merits of all matters concerning such judgment or orders; and examine proofs relating thereto, and make such ' determinations as if there had not been any defect or want of 'form.' But the sessions cannot amend an order in matter of sub, stance. Thus in the case of Great Bedwin v. Wilcot, Tr. 14 & 15 Geo. 2, on an order of removal of a certificate-person there was no complaint of the churchwardens or overseers, nor any adjudication that the certificate person was actually become cliargeable. On appeal, the sessions in pursuance of the above act, amended the orders in these particulars, considering them as matters of form only.-But by Lee Ch. J. The act directs that the sessions shall amend defects in form, and afterwards proceed on the merits: this means defects or mis. takes appearing upon the face of the order, mere defects or want of form. But some of these matters here amended seem to be merits as the adding, upon complaint of the overseers of the parish from whence the paupers were removed, for without such complaint the justices have no jurisdiction. Then what can be more of the merits than the certificate-man's having become actually chargeable? for unless he is so he is not removeable. Now the two justices have not adjudged that. The other judges concurred, and Wright added, that the sessions cannot amend any thing which requires examination. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 163. But it seems that the error of inserting the name of one parish instead of another may be amended at sessions, if it ap pears clearly to have arisen from the mistake of the clerk; for in the K, v. Harrow on the Hill, an order of removal from the parish of Luggershall to the parish of Harrow, upon an adjudication that the settlement is in Luggershall, was confirmed and amended, by striking out Luggershall and inserting Har Tow...It was contended, that this was a defect, in substance, and therefore not amendable.--THE COURT, however, 'scem'ed to be of opinion it was only a defect in form, being a mis'take of the clerk, who filled up the blank order with the name 'of Luggershall instead of Harrow; but they granted a rule 'to shew cause. The order of sessions was afterwards confirmed 'by consent.' 2 Bott, Const's ed. 828. And by 16 Geo. 2. c. 18, it shall be lawful for every jus'tice of peace to execute all acts appertaining to his office, so 'far as the same relates to the laws for the relief, maintenance, and settlement of poor persons; notwithstanding any such 'justice is rated to or chargeable with the taxes, levies, or rates, within any parish, township, or place affected by any such act of such justice. Provided that this act shall not autho'rise any justice to act in the determination of any appeal to 'the quarter sessions for any county or riding from any order, matter, or thing, relating to any such parish, township, 'or place, where such justice is so charged or chargeable.' Accordingly, in the K. v. Yarpole, Mic. 31 Geo. 3. it was objected against an order of sessions made on an appeal from an order of removal, that three of the justices who voted and joined in such order of sessious were rated in one of the contending parishes; and it was admitted that the order of sestions could not be supported. 4 Term Rep. 71. gene And by 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30, for the more effectually prevent- Sessions may ing of vexatious removals and appeals, IT IS ENACTED, That award costs the justices of the peace of any county or riding, in their upon appeal. ral or quarter sessions of the peace, upon any appeal before them there to be had concerning the settlement of any poor person, or upon any proof before them there to be made of notice of any sach appeal to have been given by the proper officers, to the churchwardens or overseers of any parish or place (though they did not afterwards prosecute such appeal), shall, at the same quarter sessions, order to the party in whose behalf such appeal shall be determined, or to whom such notice did appear to have been given, such COSTS AND CHARGES in the law as by the said justices in their discretion 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 by the person that did give such notice; and if the person ordered to pay such costs shall live oat of the jurisdiction of the said court, any justice where such person shall inhabit, shall, upon request to nim made, and a true copy of the order, for the payment of such costs produced, and proved by some credible witnesses 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 that 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. s. 3. The allowance of these costs is wholly in the discretion of the sessions; for in the K. v. the justices of Nottingham, 5 Geo. I, VOL, IV. Ꭰ d Maintenance to be allowed. ! a mandamus was directed to the justices to give costs to the party in whose favour the appeal had been determined. But upon the return, the Court held it reasonable for them to have the power of judging whether costs should be allowed or not, and quashed the writ of mandamus. 2 Bott, Const's ed $67. And the sessions cannot order costs on a mere adjournment of an appeal. Thus in the K. v. Stansfield, Ea. 16 Geo. 2, th sessions adjourned the appeal to the next quarter sessions and ordered four guineas costs to the appellants: which orde was quashed as to the costs, for the sessions cannot give cos on a mere adjournment of the appeal without hearing it. Ba row's Selt. Cas. 205. Also by 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. s. 9. if the sessions, upon an appe before them concerning the settlement of any poor perso shall determine in favour of the appellant, that such poor p son was unduly removed, then the same quarter sessions sh award to such appellant so much money as shall app to have been reasonably paid by the parish or place on wh behalf such appeal was made, for the relief of such p person, between the time of such undue removal and the termination of such appeal; the said money so awarded t recovered in the same manner as costs and charges upon 6 appeal according to the statute 8 & 9 Will. 3.' And the court will grant a mandamus to the sessions to a! these charges; for in St. Mary's Nottingham v. Kirkling Ea. 3 Geo. 3, it was moved for a mandamus to be direcie the justices of peace of the town and county of Nottingh commanding them to allow the parish of Kirklington the pense and charges their officers had been put to, in keepit poor person from the time of his removal to the paris Kiklington till the time that the order of removal was charged by the sessions, upon the appeal of the parish of K lington from it.-BY THE COURT. This is what is ord by the statute 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. s. 9, and has been allowed in case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Boston.—A mandamus granted. 2 Sess. Cas. 67. But the sessions cannot direct the costs of maintainin pauper to attend the event of another supposed appeal; f the K. v. Great Chart, Mic. 16 Geo. 2, an order of ses quashing an insufficient order of justices for the removal pauper from the parish of Great Chart, to the parish of nington, concluded thus: It is further ordered by this that the costs of maintenance of the said S M, since the of the removal to the said parish of Kennington, shall the event of the cause; in case the parish of Great Chart think proper by another order to remove the said S M sail parish of Kennington, and the inhabitants of Kenn appeal to this court from the same.-BY THE COURT. that part of the order which directs the costs of maintaini |
