Page images

trouble of appealing against it. May not a party give up a judgment intended for his own benefit : Burrow's Sett. Cas. 658.

And to make an order of removal unappealed from conclasive, it must have been a legal order.--Thus in the K. v. Sãal cliffe, Ilil. 23 Geo, 3, the paupers Thomas Hawkins and Mary his wife, were removed from Swalclile to Ascot. There was no appeal to the next sessions from this order. But the pau. pers being likely to become chargeable to Ascot, they were re. moved back to Swalcliffe.--It was contended, that the first order, being unappealed from, was conclusive. But it was said on the other side, that an order unappealed from is only conclusive when directed to a place to which a removal cau be legally made : but that in the present case it appeared that

Ascot was only a large village, which maintained its poor in common with the parish of whichford, and had po separate overseers or other officers to receive the paupers; and that Il'hichford could not possibly appeal in this case : for not being parties, they were not intitled to interfere or to be heard*.

And by lord Munsfield. This was in fact no removal at all, and, being a mere pullity, cannot become the subject of appeal; and to make an order unappealed from conclusive, it must be a legal order. Caldecot's Cases, 248.

So in the kiv. Fillongley, Mic. 29 Geo. 3, the pauper on the 1st January 1786, and for some years before, rented and resided on a tenement in the parish of Fillongley, of the yearly value of 101, and upwards, and continued thereon until the 29th April in the sanie year, when he was removed, by an or. der of removal, from the parish of Fillongley, to the ham. let of Kinwalsey; and on the same day on which he was deli. Tered with the said order of removal, he returned back to the tenement in the parish of Fillongley, where he resided without making any new .co tract with his landlord for the same, and without any interruption, for about three quarters of a year, and then was removed by the present order to the said hämlct of Kinwalsey. An appeal against the said order of removal

of the 29th April 1786, was entered, but was not prosecuted.' By lord Kenyon Ch. J. This case is abundantly too clear to raise any serious doult. Nothing can be better established, than that the order of removal, unappealed from, is con

clusive as to the pauper's scttlement at that time ;' but there is nothing in the order which prevents the pauper's retorn, pro. vided he does not return in a state of ragrancy. It is also clear, that it is not in the power, cither of the two magistrates who removed the pauper, or of the justices at their sessions, ou an appeal, to put an end to a contract between the parties rc. specting the taking of a tenement. As far as respects the set. tlement of the persons removed, they may determine, but no farther.' And that distinguishes this case from the K. v. Kenie.

* See this part of the case in p. 360 sopra.

zorih: that was a case of master and servant; and there the justices have a power of putting an end to the contract. But here, at the time of, the first removal, the justices had no right to put an end to the contract, nor can we see on what ground the pauper was removed; for it is stated, that he " rented and resided on a tenement of 101. per annum, which

infers a contract,' That contract was most clearly not dis. solved by the adjudication of the justices, and then the pauper. cannot be considered as returning in a state of vagrancy. And though he did not return under a new contract, yet that was not necessary, for the old contract remained, and then by Tesiding at Fillongley forty days after the removal, he gained a settlement. -Ashhurst J. The first order of removal could not possibly rescind the prior legal agreement between the pauper and a third person. And though an order is conclusive as to the settlement at the time when it was inade, that is merely technical, and so far we are bound: therefore, in this case it must be taken that tlie pauper had not gained a settlement in Fillongley at the time of the first removal. But when he returned, it was under the old contract, which had never been rescinded. Then he did not return as a vagrant, but he came to the parish of Fillongley to settle on a tenement of 101. per annum, and he there acquired a settlement by a residence for more than forty days, -Grosc J. I think, if we could proceed On supposition, that the real transaction was this : after the appeal against the first order was made, the justices discovered that he was wrongfully removed, and then they agreed that he should be at liberty to return to Fillongley on his dropping the appeal. However, we are to determine on the facts stated ; and for the reasons given I am of opinion that the contract was not dissolved by the first order, that the pauper had a right to return to the parish of Fillongley, and by residing there more than forty days, he gained a settlement in Fillongley. 2 Term Rep. 709.

And if it do not distinctly appear on an order of removal that the justices who made it, had jurisdiction, it is a nullity, and not merely voidable; and the parish to which it is directed, may objrct to it at any distance of time, thoug: they never ap). pealed against it, and though they have acted underit for 20 years. This was decided in the K. v. Chilverscoton, Bil. 39 Gvo. 3. which was as follows: two justices removed the paupers from Sow to Chilverscoton, and the sessions on appeal coufiridel that order, and stared the following case : the pauper was born about 55 years ago, in Sow, but was settled in Chiloerscoton ; in 1779 he married his present wife in Bedrovrth, where he then resided; they were alterwards removed to Sdio by the following order : "To the church wardens and overseers of the poor of the

parish of Bedworth, in the county of W. and to the church. wardens and orerseers of the parish, of Sow in the county of C.- Whereas complaint has been made by you the church. Wardens and ove seers of the poor of the said parish of B. unto us, whose hands and scals are hercunto sct, two of his majes.


6 ty's justices of the peace (whereof one is of the quorum) for th

county aforesaid, That, &c.' (there being no county in th margin). The order was dated 16th March 1779 ; against th order there was no appeal ; afterwards in May 1779, a cert ficate was granted by the parish of Sow to the parish of Be worth, acknowledging the paupers to be settled in Sow, but the time of granting this certificate no settlement had been gain in Sow, unless the above order of removal from Bedworth Sow had conferred one; but the pauper's settlement had alwa continued at Chilverscoton. THE QUESTION before the court sessions was, whether the above order of removal from Bedwor to Sow unappealed from were good and binding, or defecti and void ? and this turned upon the question whether the mer order of removal from Bedrorth to Sow was only voida or absolutely void for if the former, then it was admitte that as it was not appealed against it was now conclusive; b if the latter, it was then contended, that it might be treated a nullity at any time, and then the justices were warran on this occasion in removing the pauper from Sora to Chilve coton, notwithstanding there was no appeal against the or made in 1779; and it was contended that an order purport to be made by justices for the county aforesaid, (two coun having been before mentioned) without saying for which of two counties was a nullity, by reason of its not showing the justices had jurisdiction, and to shew that the jurisdict of the justices must be in all cases strictly set forth were d

Stepney; K. 9. Swalcliffe; K. v. Hulcoth; Croppsv. D den, and other cases. *

On the other side it was contended that the former order m in 1779 was not absolutely void, but only voidable, and therefore as it was not appealed against it was now conclu on the parish of Sow, that two counties being mentioned the beginning of the order and afterwards the words for county aforesaid, the latter may refer to the one or the ot! and was matter of enquiry on an appeal, and might have 1 amended by the sessions under the stat. 5 Geo. 2. c. 19. as matter of form, and that the parish of Sow having quiesced under this order for 20 years, ought not at this dista of time to be perniitted to object to it in this collateral and several cases were cited in support of the argumen But by lord KENYON Ch. J. Is this an objection of forme substance? it certainly is a matter of substance, it should pear on the face of the order, that the justices who made it jurisdiction ; if they had jurisdiction, every fair presumption be made that they decided rightly; but if they had not proceeding is a nullity ; it is said however, that the paris Sow ought not to be permitted at this distance of time to ject to the order ; but there is a maxim that quod ab initio valet, træclu temporis non convalescett. And as this order

* See these cases referred to in the Genora! Index.

+ That is, That which at the first was invalid cannot by lengt time become valid.

K. v.

void at the time when it was made, because it doth not appear
that the justices who removed had any jurisdiction, it cannot
hare becoine a valid order by the time that bas sioce elapsed,
the general proposition indeed that an order of removal unap-
pealed against is conclusive on the parish to which the removal
is made, cannot be shaken, but it must be understood as part
of that proposition, that the order is not a nullity, but was
made by two justices having jurisdiction to make it. The K. v.
Stepney is conclusive. GROSE J. In the K. v. Great Bedwin,
it was holden that the sessions cannot amend an order of re.
moral in matters of substance.- LAWRENCE J. expressing some
doubts, the matter stood over.--AND afterwards lord KENYUN
Ch. J. said, we have considered the cases cited, and are of
opinion, on the authority of the K. v. Stepncy, and the K. v.
Creat Bedwin, that the former order was a nullity, and though
it was not appealed against it is not conclusive on the pa.
Tish of Sow. And LAWRENCE J. said, that he was struck with
one of the arguments at the bar, that the sessions on appeal
might have enquired whether the justices were of one county
or the other, and that on that he had hesitated at first; but
he said that the stat. 26 Geo. 2. c. 27, which enacts that no
order made by two or more justices of the peace which does
not express that one of them is of the quorum, shall be set
aside for that defect only,' gives an answer to that argument;
for if such a defect might have been inquired of at the sessions
and amended under the stat, of 5 Geo. 2. c. 19. there could have
been no occasion for the act of 26 Geo. 2. Order of se. sions
confirmed. 8 Ter. Rep. 178.

On an order of removal being reversed, two justices of the Removal after appellant parish may remove the pauper back to the parish froin appeal. thence he was sent, if he is either unable to return of himself, or will not. --Thus in Iloniton v. South Beverton, Mic. 8 IVill. 3, two justices removed a man from Honiton in the county of Devon to South Beverton in the county of Somerset. The parish of South Beverton appealed to the sessions in the county of Devon, when the order of removal was reversed: now two justices in the county of Somerset may, by order, remove him to Honiton again; for it is but in execution of the order of sessions, which could not otherwise be done, because it is out of the ju. risdiction of the court of sessions. Comber. 401.

But if an order of removal be confirmed, it is final and cos. clusive, and the parish where the pauper is adjudged to be settled, cannot remove him to a third parish, on the ground of his having gained a settlement there previous to the confirmation of thie order. --Thus in Harrow v. Rislip, Mic. 10 Will. 3, A. comes into Harrow, and being likely to become chargeable, was removed to Rislip. Rislip appealed; and upon the appeal A. was adjudged to be settled at Rislip. Afterwards Rislip discovered that Hendon was the place of his last legal settlement, and sent him thither. And the question was, Whether, after the adjudication upon the appeal, Rislip was not estopped


against all the world to say tha! Rislip was not the place of his last legal settlement ? ---And by lioli Ch. J. Rislip is estopped to say otherwise ; for if Rislip had not been the very place of his last legal settlement, the justices must have sent him back to Harrow, who were first possessed of him, for that reason, Because they were possessed of him, and he did not belong to Rislip. And now this is in effect the same question again, viz. Whether he belongs to Rislin? which question has been already etetermined by the justices on the appeal, who have adjudged that he was last settled at R slip. Sow this point being deter. mit d, the appeal must be final and conclusive, otherwise there would be no end of things. Sulk. 52-1.

So in Minton v. Stony Stratford, Mic. 13 Ilill. 3....By Ilolt Ch. J. and the C«>URT. When upon appeal an order is confirmed, that is conclusive to all persons as well as to the pare ties ; for it is an adjudication that this is the place of the party's last legal settlernent. Salk. 527....See the like point in Swanscumbe v. Shensfield. Saik. 492. .

So in Little Bitham v. Sumerby, Mic. 6 Geo. 1, a person is sent by order of two justices to Somerby, as the place of his last legat settlement. Somerby appeals, and the order is confirmed. Soon after, without stating that he had gaived any new settlement, Somerby sends him to a third place.--. BY THE COURT. An order of reversal is final only between the two parishes, but if it be confirmed, it is final as to all the world; and therefore po new settlement appearing, the order of removal from Somerby must be quashed *. 1 Strange, 232.

But if an order of removal be quashed by the sessions, not generally, but for want of form only, it is not conclusije on the parties....Thus iu the K. v. the inhabilants of St. Andres, Blolburn, Ea. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, two justices removed a woman and her illegitimate child from the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, to the parish of Northais, in the county of Hertford. On appeal, the sessions stated the following case for the opinioa of the court: By an order of two justices, dated 24th July, • 1794, the settlement of the woman was adjudged to be in the parish of St. Andiero, Holborn, and she was directed to be removed to Northaw.' By virtue of this order, she was accordingly removed from St. Andrew, Holborn, to Northaw. Upon appeal, it was ordered that the said last mentioned order, for *the want of a proper adjudication of the last legal settlement 6 of the pauper, which was apparent on the face of it, should be

quashed ; and the same was accordingly quashed : after which, on 25th Januury 1995, the present order was made whereby two justices removeit this woman and her illegitimate child from St. Andrew Holborn, to Norihaw. Upon appeal, the court were of opinion that the said woman and child ought not to

* See also the cases of the K. v. linrworth, and the K. y. Leiga p. 200, 201, supra.

« PreviousContinue »