there is but one commission of the peace for the whole county; 107. The appeal to the sessions may be adjourned.-For in the Adjournment of the appeal. K., Langley, Tr. 11 Will. 3, it was moved to quash an order of sessions, because the justices had adjourned the appeal from one sessions to another, and so the determination upon the appeal was not at the next quarter sessions.-But BY THE COURT. The appeal must be lodged at the next quarter sessions, but when it is lodged, the sessions may adjourn it. Salk. 605. Comb. 365. 2 But when the sessions is adjourned, the style of the sessions ought not to run at such a sessions held by adjournment;" but the original meeting of the sessions ought to be set forth, 43 Elizoc. 2, .་ and that it was continued from thence to such further time by adjournment. 2 Strange, 832. 865. Thus in the Q. v. Hindercleave, an order made at the gene. ral quarter sessions, held by adjournment, was quashed; be cause it did not appear that this was the next general quarter sessions; for it might be that the sessions was begun, and continued by adjournment before the order was made. 19 Vi ner's Abr. 356. So in the K. v. Heptonstall, Tr. 10 Geo. 2, it was objected, that on the caption of the order of sessions, the sessions were said to be holden on such a day by adjournment, but it did not appear when the original sessions were holden.-BY THE COURT. This is a fatal exception: the order must be quashed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 88. And the sessions cannot be adjourned without entering a continuance of it.Thus in the K. v. Polstead, Hil. 20 Geo. 2, appeal was made to the quarter sessions, held April 7, against an order of removal. The sessions was adjourned to April 9, 1 when for want of a sufficient number of justices nothing was done. April 11th a sessions was held, and adjourned to the 14th, when the appeal was allowed. It was moved to quash the order of sessions, as made without jurisdiction, the sessions ending for want of an adjournment on the 9th; and of that opinion was the Court, for the words in stat. 2 Hen. 5. c. 4y and more often if need be, were never considered as giving more than one original sessions in a quarter, but only epowering adjournments. The country must take notice of adjournments, but are not supposed to expect a new sessions till the usual time.-Order of sessions quashed. 2 Strange, 1263. So in the K. v. West Torrington, Tr. 22 & 23 Geo. 2, the sessions was held at Kirton, and from thence adjourned to Cais ter, at which place no sessions was held pursuant to the said adjournment; afterwards a sessions was held at Horncastle; and the appeal was heard and determined there.-By THE COURT. The sessions at Horncastle could not take up the appeal for want of jurisdiction: a quarter sessions must be holden four times in a year, as directed by statute; and it may be adjourned from time to time, and from place to place; but if it is once dropped, it cannot be resumed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 993. And if the sessions refer a case to the assizes, they must state a proper adjournment of the sessions. Thus in the K. v. Hedingham Sible, Tr. 10 & 11 Geo. 2, two justices removed a pauper from Finchingfield to Hedingham, and on appeal the order was quashed. It appeared on these orders, with others made between the same parishes, that an order had been made at sessions, referring the question in this case to the determination of the judge of assize, but without any particular continuance of the appeal being entered. It was objected, that this third order, not having continued the appeal by a proper adjournment, but only referring it to the judge of assize, without reserving the determination to themselves, after they should and the his opinion; this was a discontinuance of the appeal, know sessions could not take the matter up again, and the fourth order (which discharged the original order) was consequently a bad one. The counsel on the other side did not pretend to support it.-And by Lee, Ch. J. The former is only a conditional reference to the judge of assize, without any continuance or adjournment: the lat ter, therefore, cannot be valid. Burrow's Settlement Cases, 112. But the adjournment of a sessions is not to be to a time be youd that fixed by the stat. 2 Hen. 5. c. 4, for the holding another original sessions. The K. v. Grince, Tr. 4 Geo. 1. 2 Butt, Const's ed. 84. And if there are not justices enough to hold à sessions, there are not enough to adjourn it legally, and every act done after ench an adjournment is void. The K. v. Westrington, Hil. Geo. 2. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 844. On an appeal from an order of removal, the respondents may compel an inhabitant of the parish appealing, who is not rated, to any of the parochial taxes, to be examined: and they may also produce an inhabitant of their own parish, who is not rated, and the evidence of such inhabitant shall be received.-This was determined in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Little Lumley, It. Term, 35 Geo. 3. The sessions quashed an order of two justices for the removal of an ideot, from Little Lumley to Lamesley. The respondents in order to prove the birth of the pauper in Lamesley, called as a witness, E. Morallee an inhabitant of Lamesley, not rated to, nor paying any of the parochial taxes, but on the contrary receiving relief from that township at the time that she was so produced: but the sessions having informed her that, as being an inhabitant of Lamesley (the appealing parish), she was not compellable to give evi dence on the part of the respondents, and she declining to give such evidence voluntarily, she was not examined. The respondents also produced S. Hall, who was an inhabitant of their own parish, viz. Little Lumley, but not rated to any of the parochial taxes, in order to identify the pauper, by proving that she had maintained and had the care of him ever since he was three weeks old. But the sessions being of opinion, that the evidence of S. Hall was inadmissible, on account of her being an inhabitant of Little Lumley, refused to suffer her to be examined; and the respondents not producing any other witness in support of The order the appeal was allowed, subject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench on the following questions: Ist, Whether, under the circumstances of the case, E. Morallee was or was not compellable to give evidence and 2dly, Whe Stating a special ease. ther S. Hall was or was not a competent witness? THE COURT said that the mere circumstance of inhabitancy did not create an interest in the last witness called, so as to make her an incompetent witness; and that there was no reason why the former should not be compelled to give evidence; and they or dered the case to be sent back to the sessions to be heard.* 6 Term Rep. 157. If the sessions state a special case for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench, they must draw their own conclusion from the facts, and not leave it to the superior court to make the inference.-For in Hil. Ter. 11 Will. 3, an order of sessions drawn up specially, in order to have the opinion of the Court, was concluded, and if the Court should be of opinion "then, &c." this was held nought, for the justices ought to determine cac way or other, and not make a special conclusion, referring to the Court. Sulk. 486. But although the justices must determine one way or other, yet they need not state the reason of their judgment.—Thus in South Cadbury v. Braddon, Mie. 9 Ann. on an appeal to the sessions, the Court discharged the first order; and it was moved to set aside the order of discharge, because the justices do not say whether they discharge it for form, or on the merits, for if it was for form, the parish is not bound; but if on the merits, the parish in consequence is hereby discharged for ever.-Bat, BY THE COURT. The justices are not bound to express the rea son of their judgment in the judgment, no more than other courts; the reason of their judgment must be collected from the record. Salk. 607. And a special case must not state the evidence of the facts but the facts themselves. Thus in the K. v. Martley, Tr.. 11 & 12 Geo. 2, on an order of sessions confirming the original order of removal of several paupers, it appeared that they were all strollers and vagrants, and had been so all their lives, and never gained any settlement any where; and the places of their birth seemed very uncertain. However, the sessions had not sufficiently stated the facts, they had stated only the evidence.-THE COURT recommended it to the counsel on both sides, to consent that it should go down again to be better stated: they supposed it to be the intention of the session, to state the facts for the opinion of the Court upon them, but the Court could not judge of the place where the paupers were born; special orders of sessions were considered, they said, in the nature of special verdicts, which are not to 6 state the evidence of the fact, but the fact itself.'+ Burrow's Sett. Cas. 120. And fraud is a fact which must be expressly found by the sessions, for the Court of King's Bench cannot infer it. Thus * See the case of the K. v. Prosser, in vol, iii. p. 778. to exp nort be c the K. v. Weston, Tr. 14 Geo. 2, upon a special order of sions it was stated, that the pauper took a farm of 10l. per im in Kirton, which had been let at that rent for six years 1st past, but before only at 71. per annum, and he also took a tack of 20s. a-year in Kirton, and his family lived ten Booths there; that when he first took to these tenements, he sot of ability to stock them, and being told by the former nt that 101. per annum was too much he answered, he tot regard the dearness, for as it was ten pounds a year would gain him a settlement, and put an end to a dispute etween two towns: but desired the former tenant to take no otice of this to any body.'-The sessions determined this to settlement in Kirton.-But the order being removed, was ed; for The Court said, they could not hold this to be dulent, it not being so adjudged;' and evidence of fraud is icient: and as to the value, they must take it to be ac to the rent, unless the contrary was stated; for as it moral of a man from his farm, it should be shewn to be he. 2 Strange, 1156. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 166. Cas. 189. here the sessions expressly find the fact of fraud, clusive.-Thus in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Llanic. 32 Geo. 3, the sessions adjudged the taking of a at to be fraudulent, and that the pauper did not hold a of 101. per annum.-By lord Kenyon Ch. J. As ons have stated the taking to be fraudulent, and the at not to be of the value of 10l. per annum, this is Order of sessions affirmed. 4 Term Rep. 473. Be the sessions state all the facts from whence they infer the Court of King's Bench may examine the propriety conclusions. Thus in the K. v. Tedford, Tr. 8 & 9 two justices removed a pauper from Waddingham to upon appeal, the sessions stated specially a case to before the judge of assize, viz. that the pauper being Tedford, contracted with one Atkinson for a house lage in Waddingham for 391. which was conveyed to per and his heirs accordingly; the pauper paid 97. and tol paid the remaining 30l. to Atkinson by the pauer; about a month after the execution of the conveypauper mortgaged the premises to Bristol, for reof the said 30%. the pauper continued in possession ryears after the mortgage; then Bristol the mortgages virtue of the said mortgage and a release of the redemption: then the inhabitants of Waddingham propauper, being out of possession, to be removed to The order of sessions recites, that "Whereas the of asize had not time to hear and determine it, and the parties agreed this to be the true state of the case; ore, upon hearing counsel and further evidence on both this Court doth not declare and adjudge, that the pur. madeby the pauper was fraudulent, and his settlement in the IV. E e |
