« EdellinenJatka »
consequence of law that the money paid upon it must be refunded by those who received it, or an action for monies had and received will lie to recover it back again. (1)
To what Sessions an Appeal must be made in point of
I. APPEALS against poor's rates.
Under 43 Eliz. c. 2. s. 6. it must be to the general quarBy 43 Eliz. 1. Appeal ter sessions for the county, provided the place for which against rates to the general the rate is made be within that jurisdiction. But sect. 8. quarter ses
enables the justices of peace of towns, places corporate, and cities, at their quarter sessions (if they hold any), “ to do and execute for all the uses and purposes in this act prescribed, and no other justice or justices of the peace to enter or meddle there.”
Jurisdiction reserved to corporate justices.
Under this section, therefore, the appeal against a rate made for any parish or place within corporate towns, places, or cities, must be to the corporation sessions, and cannot be to the general quarter sessions of the county; for the justices at the quarter sessions for the county have no jurisdiction, as there are negative words in the clause which excludes them. (2)
Sect. 5. gives
But 17 Geo. II. c. 38. sect. 5. provides, that in all corporparty rated,
ations or franchises, who have not four justices of the peace, within a franchise not hav- persons, if they think fit, may appeal to the general or quarter ing four jus
sessions for the county, riding, or division, wherein such tices, an appeal to the county corporation or franchise is situate. sessions.
This act does not include appeals against orders of removal (3), and it applies only to corporations and franchises
(1) Rex v. Bradford, 9 East, 97.
(2) Rex v. St. Mary in Taunton, i Bott, 265. Pl. 260. S. C. ib. Pl. 261.
(3) Per Abbot C. J. 4 B. & A. 293.
where there are not more than four justices in point of fact(1): it seems that the words of the statute are to be construed with literal strictness.
The corporation of Saffron Walden had six justices, and regularly held a court of quarter sessions for the town and its precincts. In the rate appealed against all the justices but one were rated; and one ground of appeal was, that the appellant was over-rated in respect to the assessments made upon two of them. The court of king's bench was of opinion that these justices of the borough were not disqualified from sitting as a court of appeal under the poor laws, on the ground of their being rated or chargeable with the rates of the place wherein their jurisdiction is to be exercised. Upon a view of the statutes, and adverting to their policy and object, the legislature appear to have meant in the case of borough justices, where the whole number of them was four or more, to leave their jurisdiction under 43 Eliz. entire; not curtailed or abridged from suspicions of possible abuse. (2)
17 Geo. II. c. 38. s. 4. gives the “ appeal to the next ge- 17 Geo. II. neral or quarter sessions for the county, riding, division, c.38. s. 4. corporation, or franchise, where such parish, township, or place (3) lies.”
And it has been decided that notwithstanding the expression general or quarter sessions, the appeal in counties where both are held, must be made to the general quarter sessions notwithstanding the intervention of a general sessions: For it appears from other parts of the act as well as from other statutes made in pari materia, that the word general is not used with a view to those places that have both general and quarter sessions, such as London and Middlesex, but as another word for quarter sessions in con
(1) Eod. Jud. ibid.
(2) Rex o. Justices of Essex, 5 M. & S. 513. But see 1 Geo.IV.c.36. post, 495.
(5) For which the rate is made.
tradistinction to a special sessions, every quarter sessions being a general sessions. (1)
(1) Rex v. Justices of London, 15 East, 632. Lord Ellenborough C.J, This was a motion for a mandamus to enter continuances upon an appeal by John Stocks, against a poor-rate: and the question was, whether in London, where there are eight sessions every year, four general quarter sessions, and four general sessions, a party is bound to appeal to the general sessions, if they occur first after the rate; or whether he is en. titled to pass over the general sessions, and appeal to the next general quarter sessions ? The rate in this case was published in the church on the 28th October, 1810; the next general quarter sessions were on the 29th of the same month, but as there was no interval between them and the publication, it could not be expected that the appeal should be made at those sessions. The next general quarter sessions were in January, 1811, and to that sessions Mr. Stocks appealed; but as a general session had intervened, the question is, whether the appeal was not out of time. The appeal was adjourned to the three following quarter sessions; and at an adjournment of the October quarter sessions, in November, 1811, the sessions decided that Mr. Stocks had not appealed in time; and on that ground dismissed the appeal. By the stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2. 5. 4. if any person shall find himself aggrieved, the justices of peace, at their general quarter sessions, shall take such order therein as to them shall be thought convenient. This statute, therefore, gave the appeal to the quarter sessions indefinitely, without even limiting it to the next which should occur. By stat. 17 Geo. II. c.38. s. 4. a person aggrieved may appeal to the next general or quarter sessions of the peace for the county, riding, division, corporation, or franchise, where the township, parish, or place, for which the rate is made, lies: but if it shall appear that reasonable notice was not given of the appeal, the justices shall adjourn it to the next quarter sessions, and then finally hear and determine it: And the said justices may award to the party, for whom the appeal shall be determined, reasonable costs, in the same manner as they are empowered to do in case of appeals concerning the settlement of poor persons by stat. 8 & 9W.III. c.30. This statute, therefore, limits appeals (in terms) to the next general or quarter sessions, and the question is, whether the word “ general" is used with a view to those places which have both general and quarter sessions, as London and Middlesex; or whether it is not used as another word for quarter sessions, in contradistinction to a special sessions; every quarter sessions being a general session ? And we are of opinion that the latter is the true construction; and that an appeal to the next quarter sessions, notwithstanding the intervention of a general sessions, is in time. The direction to adjourn to the next quarter sessions, if proper notice be not given, dropping the word general, falls in with the notion that the legislature used it in the sense we adopt; for if these appeals were to be heard at the general sessions, which inter
c.ll. s. 10.
II. As to appeals against orders of removal.
2. Appeals against re
movals. There is a difference in the wording of the several statutes, by which this right of appeal is given or confirmed. 13 & 14 Car. II. c.12. provides, “ that all such persons 15& 14 Car. II. who shall think themselves aggrieved by any judgment of c. 12. 5. 2. the said two justices, may appeal to the justices of the peace of the said county (1) at their next quarter sessions,” &c. 3 & 4 W. & M. c.11. s.10. enacts, “ that all persons who 3&4 W.& M. think themselves aggrieved with any such judgment of the said two justices, may appeal to the next general quarter sessions of the peace to be held for the county, riding, city, town corporate, or liberty, from which the said person was so removed.” But it is enacted by 8 & 9 W.III. c. 30. 8 & 9W.III. s.6. “ that the appeal against any order for the removal of any poor person from any parish, township, or place, shall be had, presented, and determined at the general or quarter sessions of the peace for the county, division, or riding, wherein the parish, township, or place from whence such poor person shall be removed, doth lie, and not elsewhere, any former law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding.”
c. 30. s. 6.
In construing this latter statute, it has been held, that if Appeals to gethere be an appeal to the sessions of a town which is a
neral sessions. county of itself, where by charter only general sessions are held, it must be made to such general sessions. (2)
vened between the quarters, no reason can be given why the adjourn-
(1) i.e. in which the order of removal is made.
8 & 9 W.III. This act (1) also takes away from limited jurisdictions transfers appeals to the
the power of hearing appeals against orders of removal, county sessions given them by 3 & 4 W. & M. c.11. s.10.
So that now in limited ju- all appeals against orders of removal, made by magisrisdictions.
trates of a limited jurisdiction, must be to the next sessions for the county, riding, or division, in which the place is situated from which the removal is made. (2)
Two justices of St. Alban's (which is a limited jurisdiction) made an order of removal to Wendover, which was confirmed upon appeal to the quarter sessions of St. Alban's. The court of king's bench quashed the order of sessions, because the appeal ought to have been to the sessions of the county, and not of the corporation. (3)
Order confirm- And an order made at sessions upon such an appeal is ed by borough justices, a nul- so much a nullity, that it cannot be rendered valid by the lity, and not appearance of the respondents at the borough quarter sesmade valid by sions, their entering into the merits of the question, and respondents' appearance,
settling a case for the opinion of the court of king's bench. &c.
Two justices for the borough of Colchester made an order to remove three paupers from St. Giles in Colchester, to East Donyland in Essex ; East Donyland appealed to the quarter sessions of the borough of Colchester, and they confirmed the order, and stated a special case. It
(1) 8&9 W.III. c. 30.
(2) The reason why the jurisdiction, allowed to the magistrates of borough sessions in appeals against poor rates, is taken away from them, in appcals against orders of removal, seems to be, that the allowance of rates being a ministerial act, they do not, in the case of a rate, sit in revision upon what they have themselves done. But an order of removal is a judicial act, in which they must do so, when deciding upon an appeal against it. See Reg. v. Malden, post, 495.
(3) Rex v. Wendover, 13 W.III. 2 Salk, 490. 2 Bott, 713. Pl. 79%, The jurisdiction of the justices of the liberty of St. Alban's is reserved by sect. 8. of 8 & 9W.III. c.30.; so that this seems to have been an appeal against an order of removal, made by justices of the corporation, of the town of St. Alban's.