Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

the sessions for giving notice of appeal to the next ensuing sessions, holden in July, B. an inhabitant appealed to the

The account of Easter 1771, allowed 12th April 1771, &c. Do. of Easter 1772, allowed on 29th April 1772, &c. Do. of Easter 1773, allowed 23d April 1773, &c.

During all these years Beedon and one of the allowing justices were rated to Pevensey.

General quarter sessions, 16th July 1775, before John Beedon, esq. &c., on the appeal of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Ashburnham, against the accounts of J.Reppington and Mr. Man, the late overseers of said parish, lodged at the last general quarter sessions, and respited to this, it is ordered, that the said account be confirmed, and the same is by this court confirmed accordingly.

Also on the appeal of the said Earl of Ashburnham against the last rate or assessment made for said parish of Pevensey, it is ordered that the same be amended as follows: That John Beedon be taxed for his dwelling-house at 47. a year instead of 31.; that Eliz. Jarrett be taxed at 41. for her dwelling-house, instead of 17.; and that the said rate be with such amendments confirmed, and the same is confirmed accordingly.

At this sessions previous to the determinations of the said appeals, the attorney for the appellant moved, whether as Beedon the bailiff was one of the churchwardens, and, therefore, as pretended a party, and there being no deputy-bailiff, this court had jurisdiction to determine the same. The bailiff and jurats were unanimously of opinion they had.

In the account from Easter 1772 to 1773, it appeared to the court, on the hearing of the appeal against it, that the overseers had charged 87. 18s. 4d. for their own and their companions eating and drinking at an inn.

No order of any justice was obtained for any of the disbursements therein charged. No proof was made of many sums charged, though insisted on. In said account was charged a bill as paid to Beedon, which was not at hearing the appeal paid.

The account contained the following articles :

Paid for collecting and making the book, 15s.
Paid for making a book, 5s.

Transcribing do. in the great book, 58.

A sum of 15s. was charged as aforesaid, for rent of a tenement for one Geare, who was not a pauper, and it appeared, at the time of determining the appeal, that neither that sum nor the sums of 67. 10s. and 14.10s, were then paid. A sum of 50%. borrowed by former overseers, on their notes in 1769 and 1771, were charged. Proof was made before the court proceeded to dismiss the appeals against the six first years' accounts, on the ground of their coming too late, that the notices of appeal

subsequent sessions holden in October, when his appeal was dismissed on the ground that B. ought to have ap

were couched in general terms, and did not import that the appeals were brought or to be proceeded on under 17 Geo. II.

The said John Beedon withdrew, and did not sit at the determination of the said appeal.

Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kenyon, in support of the rule, insisted, that as to six orders, they ought to be quashed, because they rejected the appeals; and the 7th, because they determined for the rate when they ought to have quashed it.

That the notice of appeal being general, the appellant might proceed either under the stat. Eliz. or Geo. II. The stat. Eliz. does not confine the appeal to the next sessions, and therefore the justices did wrong in refusing to receive the appeals.

That Mr. Beedon was a justice and party, and although it is stated that he withdrew at the time of the decision, yet that was not conclu, sive, because by the style of the court, it appears that he was present, which he ought not to have been.

If the court thinks, however, the state of the case is to be relied on, contrary to the style of the court, an information must be moved for, for procuring a falsehood to be stated.

The justices have stated upon the appeal which was heard, (viz. the 7th,) sufficient grounds to destroy their decision; for they allowed a large sum for eating and drinking, for rent for a man not a pauper, and 50l. for reimbursing people who had been out of office a great while, which they cannot do; the parish being a fluctuating body, it would be hard to make one set of parishioners pay debts contracted by another

set.

Mr. Wallace and Mr. Bearcroft, on the other side. The court gave no opinion in the King v. Justices of Berks, whether an appeal under the stat. of Eliz. could be commenced after the next sessions; but Mr. Bearcroft admitted the practice to be, that appeals under that stat. may be after the next session.

The court at first doubted whether the stat. of Eliz. and 17 Geo. II. being in pari materia, were not to be considered as one stat., and whether 17 Geo.II. had not confined the appeal to the next sessions, and introduced a new regulation; and Mr. J. Aston thought it would be most convenient so to limit the appeal; upon which Mr. Dunning said, he did not contend but that the sessions might, upon hearing the merits, say, the appeal ought to be brought at the next sessions, and on that account particular circumstances might decide against the appellant, but they had no right to refuse to receive the appeal, without hearing any thing of it, merely because of its not being in time.

[blocks in formation]

pealed to those held in July. Upon a mandamus to compel the justices to hear this appeal as being improperly dismissed, the court, after taking time to look into Rex vi Ashburnham (1), were of opinion that in every view of the case the mandamus should go, whether it be a proceeding under 43 of Eliz. or 17 Geo. II. For supposing it to be under stat. 17 Geo. II. and supposing that statute in this respect to have repealed the statute 43 Eliz. (which from the cases cited seems by no means settled), still under the circumstances, the July sessions could not be considered the next sessions for the purpose of appealing. For the allowance was on the 8th of July the last day when any effectual notice of appeal could be given, and it did not appear when B. had any notice of such allowance, and the transaction seems to carry with it the marks of design to defeat the appeal. (2)

[ocr errors]

But it is now settled that since 17 Geo. II. c. 38., an appeal against overseers' accounts must in every case be made

Ld. Mansfield. It is clear the appeal may be at any time under the stat. of Eliz. The court ought not to countenance charges for eating and drinking; and therefore thought the order of sessions should be quashed; Jum iroqqA but declared that the objection to Beedon was overcome by the state and of the case. He observed that the universal practice under stat. Eliz. wollect not to limit an appeal to the next sessions, was exceedingly material in deciding that question.

[ocr errors]

P sit of The sessions have done wrong in not receiving the appeal, as the stat. Eliz. prescribes no time.

Mr. J. Aston.-The churchwardens and overseers are to be allowed only for their bare expences. The court did not in the case of the Justices of Berks give their opinion, whether under stat. Eliz. the appeal is not tied up to the next sessions; but I see by another note, of a case before that, the court said there was no limitation to an appeal under that stat, and I think there is not, though there may be great inconvenience in trying appeals at a great distance of time.

Mr. J. Willes and Ashhurst agreeing.

Rule was made absolute.

(1) Infra.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

(2) Rex v. Justices of Dorsetshire, 15 East, 200.

[ocr errors]

* The King v. The Earl of Ashburnham and others, East. Term,1774. This note was taken by Mr. Serjcant Kirby, and communicated to me by my friend James Burrough, esq., now one of the judges of the common pleas.

to the next possible sessions after the allowance. That act $.4. having directed the appeal to be brought at the next sessions and there heard and finally determined, must, according to the rule laid down in 6 Rep. 29. that a particular affirmative statute repeals a precedent general one, be taken to have virtually repealed the 43 Eliz. c.2. s.6., as otherwise the provisions of 17 Geo. II. c. 38. s. 4. would be rendered inoperative. And unless such a construction was adopted, it would always be in the power of an appellant to deprive the respondent of his costs by delaying to bring his appeal until after the next sessions, the 43 Eliz. giving no power of awarding costs to either party. (1) 1's on Lib & Lot sy

[ocr errors]

Where a justice had committed an overseer for not aecounting according to the directions of 17 Geo. II. c.38. and his accounts were afterwards allowed by another magistrate, the justice by whom he was committed was not permittted to apply to the court of King's Bench for a handamus to the justices at a sessions subsequent to the allowance, commanding them to hear an appeal lodged before the commitment as being brought under 43 Eliz. (2) banery

The overseers' accounts must be examined and allowed Appeal must by two justices, before an appeal against them can be made be against the justices' allowto the quarter sessions (3), the 17 Geo. II. c. 38. s. 4. having ance. nade no alteration in the statute of Eliz. in this respect. (4)

13

31

(1) Rex v. Justices of Worcestershire, 5 M. & S. 457. ust. 190. S. C.

Burn's

(2) Rex v. Justices of Berkshire, 1 Const. 308. Pl. 345. The appeal A brought by the then overseer for himself and the rest of the parish. he question as stated in the report was, "whether an appeal from an verseer's accounts, verified and allowed according to the directions of le 17 Geo. II. c.38. must be to the next sessions after the allowance, or ay be to any subsequent sessions." The rule for the mandamus was ischarged, on the ground stated in the text. But Yates J. observed, I am very clear that the appeal should have been to the next sessions." (3) Rex v. Bartlett, 7 Geo. II. 1 Bott, 306. Pl. 320. 2 Str. S .983, (4) Rex v. Whitear, 5 Burr. 1365. 1 Black, Rep. 395 O

Under 43 Eliz.

may find a dif

ferent balance

As such a previous application is necessary to give the sessions jurisdiction, it should appear on the face of their order made on the subject. (1)

It was adjudged under 43 Eliz. c. 2. that upon an appeal from the allowance of overseers' accounts, the justices at sessions, if they see reason, may disallow them, and order the overseer to the overseers to pay a certain sum over, which they judge pay it. to be in their hands. (2)

due, and order

The two jus

tices first re

The defendants having been overseers of the parish of ferred to have Ash, laid their accounts before two justices of the peace; exclusive juris- but before the said two justices had either allowed or disdiction of al- allowed the accounts, or had in any manner proceeded to lowing and

examining the

accounts.

If they are allowed by others, the sessions on appeal may remit them back to the first, to be allowed.

examine them, the defendants laid them before two other justices, who immediately allowed them. On an appeal against these accounts, the sessions ordered the defendants to account before the two first justices. On a motion to quash the order, it was contended that the sessions have only power to determine the dispute finally, so that if the allowance of these accounts had not been good, they should either have set them totally aside, or have confirmed so much of them as were good, and set aside the rest; but that here they had only referred the overseers back to the two first two justices, without assigning any error or fault in the allowance by the other two justices. Parker C.J.

(1) Rex v. Bartlett, ante, 467.(5),where all that appeared by the order of sessions was, that it was "an appeal from the disbursements and from the allowance thereof." The court held that the single word " allowance," did not sufficiently shew that the accounts had been originally before two justices, for it might be an allowance by the parish, and did not necessarily import the allowance of two justices; and the order was quashed.

(2) Rex Rex v. Hedges, 2 Salk. 533. An overseer charged the parish with 31. for putting out an apprentice, and his accounts were allowed by two justices; but in fact the apprentice never was put out. Upon complaint to the sessions, they ordered that the late overseer should repay the money, so fraudulently obtained, with costs, &c. Eyre J. This order cannot be maintained, the sessions have no jurisdiction; but there may be another remedy, by indictment. Moulsworth's case, Comb. 287.

« EdellinenJatka »