« EdellinenJatka »
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)
Next sessions which.
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)
1. Next ses- Upon the first point it has been held, that the appeal sions means the first original
must be to the first original quarter sessions after the party sessions after is aggrieved; and, that where a sessions commenced before the grievar.ce.
the cause of complaint accrued, and was afterwards con
tinued by adjournment, the appeal should be entered at El the ensuing sessions, and not at such adjournment. (1) E
Thus, an order made s at the next general quarter sessions The comheld by adjournment” was quashed; because it did not ap- original ses
mencement of pear that this was the next general quarter sessions, for it sious must ap- might be that the general sessions was begun and continued pear in their s by adjournment before the order was made. (2)
order on ap
There are two divisions (though not legally recognized), Appeals where the eastern and western, in the county of Sussex, and country has two 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 ses-
within the county. (1) But it may be
It was likewise decided in the foregoing case, that as
they are adjourned from one place to another for public
Appeal not heard at an adjournment.
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. Hindercleare, ante, 501. (2)
(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 But if adjournsessions, and defers it to an adjournment, does so at his ment fails, no peril. For if no sessions are held pursuant to the ad- suing sessions. journment, 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 .. Next ses
sions means the statute, mean the next to which the party can by pos- the first pos
sible sessions. sibility 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,
Mandamus to receive an appeal. The order of removal Instanceswhen had been made on the 22d September, but the pauper was
after party aga not removed till the 5th of October. Hull, the place to grieved held which the pauper had been removed from Whitby, is sixty Sible sessions. .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.
Κ Κ 4
Mandamus to enter and hear an appeal granted.
On a rule for a mandamus to the defendants, to receive an appeal against an order of removal, it appeared that the order was dated on the 24th of September last, and executed on Monday the 3d of October, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon at Leek, which was at the distance of 54 miles from Mold, where the Flintshire sessions were holden, on Thursday the 6th of October, No appeal having been entered at this sessions, the justices at the January sessions refused to receive it, though it was stated to them, and now verified by affidavit, that the overseer of Mold, who conveyed the paupers to Leek, could only speak the Welsh language, and that the overseer of Leek, who received them, could not understand him; that near a week elapsed before the parish of Leek could gain any information re specting the settlement of the paupers, and consequently that they were not in a situation to appeal at the next Michaelmas sessions.
In shewing cause against this rule, an affidavit was produced in answer, in which it was stated, that the overseer of Mold, when he conveyed the paupers to Leek took one Price with him, for the purpose of explaining the circumstances of the case, and when parting, said, “he must make the best of his way home to attend the sessions at Mold;" it was also stated, that the order of removal was not executed before the 3d of October, on account of the resistance and threats of the pauper. Lord Kenyon, C.J.-_“ We ought not to decide hastily against the words of an act of parliament; but some reasonable time ought to be given the parish appealing, to enable them to enquêre whether or not it will be proper to enter an appeal. In this case the order of removal, which was made on the 24th of September, was kept in the overseer's pocket until the eve of the sessions, and was then executed at the distance of more than thirty miles from the place where the appeal was to be lodged. And though the sessions were holden at Mold on Thursday, in general they were holden on Tuesday, and the overseers of Leek might fairly have conceived that the sessions for Flintshire would be holden