« PreviousContinue »
and upon this appeal entered into the question upon the merits, and actually settled a case there for the opinion of this Court But THE COURT agreed that the borough sessions had no jurisdiction to make this order of confirmation, and therefore their opinion and their order are both nugatory; the appeal ought to have been to the quarter sessions of the county ; 2s no such appeal has ever been made, the original order stands good, as upappealed from ; accordingly the original order was con. firmed. Burrow's Selt. Cas. 592.
According to the statute, the appeal must be to the next ses. sions ; but in the Q. v. Monk's Risborough, Hil, 11 Ann, the whole Court agreed, that if an order is made before and pot serr. ed till after a sessions, the sessions next after the service of the order is the next sessions within the act. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 834.
So in Milbrook v. St. John's Southampton, 1 Geo. 1, it was moved to quash an order of sessions, there appearing to be an intervening sessions : and so not within the act of parliament. But BY THE COURT. You cannot take this objection now; it is matter of fact, and perhaps the order was not served till after the sessions ; this objection should have been made then ; it is too late to make it now. 2 Boti, Const's ed. 834.
So also in the K. v. Norton, Ea. 2 Geo. 2, it was ex. cepted to an order of sessions for discharging an order of removal, that the justices' order was dated the 21st of June, and the sessions' order was not till Michaelmas sessions following, so that Midsummer sessions intervened ; to this it was answered, that by the express words of the statute, the appeal is to be to the next sessions after the parties find themselves aggrier. ed which is not till the removal ; for aught appears, Michaelmas sessions might be the next sessions after the grievance, and so it was held in the case of the parishes of Milbrook and St. John's Southampton.-To this the Court agreed, and the sessions order was confirmed. 2 Strange, 831,
But although according to the statute the appeal is to be to the next sessions, yet this is to be understood the next possible sessions; and it must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, as to what shall be considered as the nert sessions. Thus in the K. v. the East Riding of Yorkshire, Ea. 19 Geo. 3, a mandamus was inoved for, to receive au appcal. The order of removal had been made by the two jns'tices on the 22d of 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 sessions began on the 6th of October; at that sessions no appeal was entered ; and at the Epiphany sessions following, which began on the 12th of January fol. lowing, the parish charged offered an appeal; the justices refused to hear it, thinking themselves bound by the words of the statute, which says, that persons aggrieved may appeal to the · justices of peace at the next quarler sessions. -TuE COURT said, that by next sessions the stat. of Car. 2, must have meant the next possible sessions; and that here it was impossible for the appellants to lodge their appeal at the Michaelmas sessions. 2 Doug. 8vo. ed. 192.
So in the K. v. the Justices of Staffordshire, Tr. Ter. 46 Geo. 3. where an appeal was lodged at the next sessions after an order of removal made, and was moved to be adjourned on the part of the appellants: no notice having been given to the respondents ; 'the sessions were of opinion that there had been sufficient time for the appellants to have given such notice after the order had been execated, and before the holding of the sessions dismissed the appeal. But a rule having been obtained, calling upon the defendants to shew cause why a inan. damus alionld not issue to them, commanding them to receive and enter a continuance on the said appeal to the next general quarter sessions, and there to hear and determine the matter of the said appeal. THE COURT after enlarging the rale, fioally made it absolute, and lord Ellenborough said, that the opinion delivered in the K. v. the Justices of Berks had been well considered ; and the Court was satisfied that the statate was compulsory on the sessions in those cases to receive and adjourn the appeal. 7 East's Rep. 549.
And as the time for appealing depends on the circumstances of each case, if it appears that there was sufficient time to give notice of, and to lodge the appeal at the next sessions, the justires are not bound to receive the appeal at a subsequent sessions.-Thus in the K. v, the Justices of Wilts, Tr. 12 Geo. S, a mandamus was moved for, to compel the justices to receive and hear an appeal to quash an order of removal... Against the mandamus it was insisted, that as the order was made four days before the sessions, and the sessions lasted three days more, the parties were bound io have appealed at the sessions next following the order of removal; especially as the two contending parties were not more than ten miles from each other, and the place of the sessions not above eight miles distant from the party complainiog ; that at least they ought to have entered their appeal, and adjourned it agreeable to the mode prescribed by the statute.--. On the other side it was urged, that there was great reason to believe that the parties removing had ensnared or compelled the pauper to marry a woman whilst he was under age; that he obtained a licence, and was, as it was supposed, prevailed upon to do so, when he was not of age : that his father swore he was under age, which strengthened this suspicios; that here was not a reasonable time for the parties to enquire
into the facts, in order to judge of the propriety of appeal. "ing. -- But by lord Mansfield Ch. J. The single question is, Whether the sessions have done wrong in not admitting the excuse offered for not appealing at the next sessions after the order of removal ? for all the facts of imputation throun out against the removing parties are out of the case. Wle*ther there is suficient time for appealing, must depend upon the facts of every case. Here the two contending parishes, and the place where the sessions were held, were within ten miles or thereabouts : it is said, the parish wanted to know if the wife of the pauper was settled with him, which depended upon the age of hin, a fact they might have kuown in less (than half an hour.' Besides, what is the case they desire to be let in to prove ? not a favourable one, but the reverse: it is, that the father may be at liberty to swear avainst the son, and prove him perjured, which I would never suffer to be done, Here the parish officers were very negligent.---Mandamus refu. sed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 838.
So in the K. 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 pauper was removed, and on the Tuesday following, the 22d, the Eas. ter sessions were held at llereford, 20 miles distant from the parish to which the party was removed ; at which sessions it is the practice not to receive any appeal after the Tuesday morn. ing. The parish not having appealed at those Laster sessions, the justices at the Midsummer sessions refused to receive the appeal, because not made at the next quarter sessions : the foundation of this application was, that as the officers of the parish to which the pauper was removed, had not sufficient tinje 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 sessions were the next possible sessions.--- But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. The words of the act of parliament are very strong, and they require the appeal to be made at the sessions next after the grievance. Where indeed an order of removal has been made some time before, and only exccuted a very short time before the sessions, so that there was no possibility of appealing to those sessions, this Court has interfered, by granting a mandamus to compel the justices at the following sessions to receive the appeal, because the words next sessions mean the next possible sessions : but this is a very different case ; for there were two intervening days after the execution of the order, and before the Easter sessions ; and if there was not sufficient time before those ses. sions to give reasonable notice of appeal, the appeal might then have been adjourned according to the stat. 9 Geo. 1. c. 7. ---The three other judges concurred.--.Mandamus refused. 3 Term Rep. 504.
But an appeal against an order of removal inay be entered at the next sessions but one after the order is executed, if there be not a reasonable time between the execution of the order and next sessions, to make enquiries respecting the pauper's settle. ment... This was decided in the case of the K. v. the Justices of Flintshire, which was as follows: a rule was obtained, calling on the defendants to shew cause wby a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to receive an appeal against au order
of two justices, by which a pauper, with his wife and family, sere removed from Mold, in the county of Flint, to Leek, in Staffordshire. The order was dated on the 24!h of September, and executed on Monday, the third of October, at four o'clock in the afternoon at Leek, which is at the distance of fifty-four miles from Mold, where the Flintshire sessions were holden on Thursday the 6th of October. No appeal liaving been en. tered at those sessions, the justices at the January sessions re.' Tused to receive the appeal, though it was stated to them, and Now verified by affidavit, that the overseer of Mold, who (ouveyed the paupers to Leck, could only speak the Welsh lan. guage, and that the overseer at Leek, who received them could not understand him; that near a week elapsed before the parish of Leek could gain any information respecting the settlement of the paupers, and consequently that they were not in a situation to appeal at the Michaelmas sessions. On these facts the rule was obtained, and by Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. (after cause shewn) We ought not to decide hastily against the words of an act of parliament: but some reasonable time ought to be given to the parish appealing, to enable them to rüquire whether or not it will be proper to enter an appeal. In this case the order of removal, which was made on the 21th of September, was kept in the overseer's pocket until the ese of the sessions, and was then executed at the distance of more than 50 miles from the place where the appcal was to be lodg. ed. And though the sessions were holden at Molil on Thurs. day, in general they are bolden on Tuesday, and the overscers of Leek might fairly have couceived that the sessions for Flint. shire would be holder on the very next day aiter the order was executed. Under these circumstances therefore, I think that the justices at the following sessions in January ought to have ruceived this appeal, and consequently that this rule should be made absolute. Per Cur.-Rule absolute. 7 Ter, Rep. 200.
And the time limited for appealing is not suspended by the matter being referred to arbitrators.---Thus in the K. v. the Justices of Devonshire, Tr. 17 Geo. 3, a mandamus was moved for, to compel the justices to hear an appeal against an order of removal from Witheriilge to Puddington. It appeared upon the affidavits that the order of removal was dated October 21. In November following the pauper was removed. Some time afterwards it was agreed between the two parishes that the question should be decided by the opinion of Hath Serjeant, provided such opinion were given on or before the 14th of January. The sessions beginning on the 15th, on the 10th of January the opinion was given. Same day the officers of Witheridge told the officers of l'uddington that the opinion was not decisive. At the Easter sessions following, the parish of Puddington appealed, but the justices refused in Bater into it, as not being in time. The mandamus had Leod. . moved for, on the ground that uader the agreement the opia
Dion in favour of the parish of Puddington was conclusiv and that the parish of Puddington had appealed, in con quence of objections raised to this clecision subsequent
the Epiphany sessions ;' and the Court being fully satis that the appeal ha! been prevented in consequence of the obj tion not having been raised previous to the Epiphany sessi -Lord Mansfield said, that as both parties had agreed this question should be submitted to counsel, and that his nion should conclude: though the Court did not quite agree the counsel in point of law, they would not, had the opis been positive, have granted the mandamus: but as the opin was indecisive, the case was to be considered as open to interposition of the Court. However, the merits of the appearing to be clearly against the party appealing, the Co to prevent further litigation and expence, refused the man mus. Cald. Cas. 32.
But where the quarter-sessions are held at two diffe places in the county, the one being an adjournment only the other, and an order of removal is executed after the be ning of the original sessions, but before the adjourned sess an appeal at the next ensuing adjourned sessions is in and ought to be received. - This was decided in the case of K v. the Justices of Sussex, which was as follows:-A was obtained, calling on the defendants to show cause w mandamus should not issue, directing them to receive and an appeal against an order of two justices for the remov a pauper, with his wife and children. It appeared that in of fact there are two divisions, though not legally recogn in the county of Sussex, the eastern and western, th
* This case was as follows: The pauper was born in Wethe and at about seven years of age was bound apprentice to a per Wetheridge, with whom he lived till twenty-one; and then ma agreement with his master to give him one guinea to discharge from his apprenticeship; the master gave him a discharge unde own band. After different services he gained a settlement in the of Puddington, by a hiring and service for a year in that parish, was so far discharged by the above transaction as to be capas gaining a settlement by hiring and service.--The opinion give Heath, Serj. was, ' That if the indenture of apprenticeship rem
in the master's hands uncancelled the apprenticeship still conti . and the agreement was no dissolution thereof, but only a licen
the apprentice to serve where he pleased. '-—But as to this per law, lord Mansfield said, I am of opinion, that if the indentare ba been destroyed, but remained in the master's hands, the app would yet have gained a subsequent settlement in Puddington master received a guinea of his apprentice, then of full age, te express purpose of vacating the indenture. Why could there after this, have used the indenture against the apprentice ? from it; the apprentice might have brought an action again master for it. Cald. Cas. 44.-See this point expressly decided, case of the K. v. Harberton, under the head Selllement by appre ship.