dismissed then, as being out of time. But the court granted a mandamus to compel the justices to hear it, and asked why the parish officers made their rate so close upon the time of the sessions; it appeared as if they had done it with a view of ousting the parties of their appeal. (1)

Appeals against orders of removal must be made to the next sessions after the removal of the paupers under it; for it is thereby that the parties are aggrieved. (2) Although it appear, therefore, on the order of sessions, that a sessions has intervened between the date of the original order and that one at which the appeal is entered, yet the court will not therefore quash the latter as not being made in time; for the order may not have been served until after the first sessions (3); and the justices are bound to receive it in all cases when presented at their next sessions after the removal.

Appeals against tered next sessions after the

removals en

removal.

A rule was moved for to shew cause why a mandamus Where order should not issue, directed to the justices of the peace for abandoned. the county of Leicester, commanding them to proceed upon the appeal of the inhabitants of Stoke-Golding, against an order removing a pauper, his wife, and four children, from Castle Donnington to Stoke Golding. This was grounded on an affidavit, stating, that the order was made in January last, and notice of appeal given. That the inhabitants of Castle-Donnington, discovering that the woman was not the pauper's wife, and so the children illegitimate, agreed to take the woman and children back, which they did, and the order of removal as to them was considered to be at an end. That afterwards, and before the sessions, a new order was made, removing

(1) Rex v. Justices of Sussex, 15 East, 206.

(2) Rex v. Monks, Risborough, 2 Bott, 714. Pl. 795. Milbrook v. St. John's, Southampton, ib. Pl. 794. Sett. and Rem. 66. Rex v. Norton, Str. 831. Road v. North Bradley, 2 Str. 1168. Rex v. Turley, 1 Sess. Cas. 175. Pl. 215. and see Rex v. Justices of Sussex, 7 Term Rep. 107. post, 502. (1).

(3) Milbrook v. St. John's, Southampton, and the cases cited supra,(2). See 1 Const. 306.

the woman and children from Castle Donnington to Sibston, against which Sibston appealed, when the sessions were of opinion, that the former order of removal not having been regularly appealed from, and quashed, was conclusive on Stoke-Golding, and for that reason were proceeding to quash the second order of removal to Sibston. That the attorney for Stoke-Golding happening to be in court, then desired that their appeal against that first order might be heard; but the justices refused it, though it was the first session after the order made. He then proposed that the sessions should permit the case to be stated for the opinion of the court of King's Bench, whether the first order, under these circumstances, was conclusive? but this was also refused. Cause was shewn against this rule, on the ground that it is the custom at Leicester for all appeals to be entered on the first day of the sessions; but this appeal was presented afterwards ; and the parish of Castle-Donnington agreeing to take the party back was nothing. Mr. Justice Buller said, they ought to have proceeded on the appeal: they were bound to receive it: it was presented at the next sessions.-Per Cur. Rule absolute for a mandamus. (1)

But although by the next sessions, to which the statutes require appeals to be made, both against rates and orders of removal, are meant those which happen next after the party is aggrieved, still distinctions must arise as to what shall be considered the next sessions. For a cause of appeal may arise after a sessions has commenced, and before its termination. Or it may occur so immediately, upon the eve of a sessions, as to render it impossible for the party to lodge it in due time. (2)

Upon the first point it has been held, that the appeal must be to the first original quarter sessions after the party is aggrieved; and, that where a sessions commenced before

the cause of complaint accrued, and was afterwards continued by adjournment, the appeal should be entered at the ensuing sessions, and not at such adjournment. (1)

mencement of

Thus, an order made "at the next general quarter sessions The comheld by adjournment" was quashed; because it did not appear that this was the next general quarter sessions, for it might be that the general sessions was begun and continued by adjournment before the order was made. (2)

1

original sessious must appear in their

order on appeal.

county has two

divisions.

There are two divisions (though not legally recognized), Appeals where the eastern and western, in the county of Sussex, and but one commission of peace for the county; the quarter sessions are always held, first, in the western, and afterwards adjourned into the eastern division. The sessions commenced in the western division on Tuesday. The removal in question was made on the Wednesday, 13th July, into the parish of Peasmarsh, which is in the eastern division, the adjournment day into which was on the Friday following. The appeal was not lodged at the sessions, but was preferred at the next October sessions, held by adjournment in the same eastern division. The court of quarter sessions was of opinion, that the adjournment sessions in July was the next possible sessions, at which the appeal ought to have been preferred, and that they had no jurisdiction to examine the merits afterwards. Lord Kenyon, C. J.-" The convenience and justice of the case are so obviously in conformity with the strict letter of the statute, that there can be no doubt on the proper construction of it. There is but one commission of the peace, and one quarter sessions, held for the county in each quarter; although for convenience, the magistrates hold the sessions, first in one part of the county, and then

(1) S. P. as to appeals against orders of filiation and maintenance, ante, 309. The sessions, while it continues, is in law considered as but one day; and the continuance from day to day need not be set out. See post. If, therefore, the cause of appeal arise (as above mentioned) after the session has commenced, that session can have no jurisdiction to entertain such appeals. See infra, (2).

(2) Reg. v. Hindercleave, 19 Vin. Abr. 336. 2 Bott, 714. Pl. 795.

by adjournment in the other part. The next quarter sessions, therefore, must necessarily mean the next original quarter sessions held for the county; for the adjournment is only a continuation of the same sessions. The removal, therefore, having been made after the commencement of the July sessions, the appeal was properly preferred at the October sessions following. Neither is there any thing in the objection, that it ought then to have been made to the original sessions in October, for that would be directly contrary to the practice which has always prevailed in counties where the sessions are adjourned from one place to another within the county. (1)

It was likewise decided in the foregoing case, that as an adjournment is a continuance of the original sessions, an appeal may be lodged at an adjournment of the next sessions as well as at their original commencement, where they are adjourned from one place to another for public convenience. (2)

As the session, how many adjournments soever there may be, is considered but as one day in law, there seems no reason why an appeal should not be lodged and heard at an adjournment, as happens where the sessions adjourn from one division of the county to another. (3) But by the practice of many courts of quarter sessions, where the county is not so divided, an appeal may be lodged at an adjournment, though it cannot be heard there. Such is the case in Surrey, where an appeal may be lodged at an adjournment, and respited to the next session (4); but it cannot be set down for hearing at an adjournment, unless by the concurrence of parties, and upon a sufficient special ground being stated, when the court will sometimes allow

(1) Rex v. Justices of Sussex, 7 Term Rep. 107. His Lordship referred to Rex v. Monks, Risborough, ante, 499. (2), and Reg. v. Hindercleave, ante, 501. (2)

(2) Ib.

(3) But no appeals are tried nor business done within each division other than what originates there, the divisions being considered in this respect as if they were distinct counties.

(4) See post, 508.

them to lodge an appeal at the original sessions, and respite the hearing to the adjournment day.

The party who neglects to appeal at the original sessions, and defers it to an adjournment, does so at his peril. For if no sessions are held pursuant to the adjournment, the original sessions are completed, and the justices have no jurisdiction to entertain his appeal at the ensuing sessions. (1)

It has been held, that the words, "next sessions," in the statute, mean the next to which the party can by possibility appeal after he is aggrieved. (2)

What is the next possible sessions, must ever remain a That a quesquestion of fact, depending upon the circumstances of tion of fact. each particular case. The following decisions are reported

on this subject,

after party aggrieved held sible sessions. the next pos

second sessions

Mandamus to receive an appeal. The order of removal Instanceswhen had been made on the 22d 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 sixty 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, the parish having offered an appeal, the justices refused to hear it, thinking themselves bound by the words of 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. s. 2. which says, that persons aggrieved may appeal to the justices of peace, "at the next quarter sessions." But the court of King's : Bench said, that by "next sessions" the statute of Car. II. must have meant the next possible sessions; and that here it was impossible for the appellants to lodge their appeal at the Michaelmas sessions. (3)

(1) Rex v. West Torrington, Burr. S. C. 293.

(2) Per Ashhurst J., Rex v. Coode, ante. 498. (1), Eodem Jud. Rex v. "Micklefield, ibid. Cases of appeal against rates.

(3) Rex v. Justices of the East Riding of Yorkshire, Doug. 192. 2 Bott, 719. Pl. 802.