« EdellinenJatka »
on the very next day after the order was executed.' Under these circumstances, therefore, I think that the justices at the following sessions, in January, ought to have received the appeal.” (1)
Order of removal served at twelve in the forendon of Sunday not
. Saturday, the sessions were held thirty-seven miles from reckoned. the appellant's parish on the following Tuesday; the court held them entitled to appeal to the subsequent sessions; for the officers must have reasonable time allowed them to make the necessary enquiries, that they may judge of the propriety of appealing ; they were not bound to devote Sunday to this purpose, and therefore had only one entire day to consider, which was insufficient; and although they could have entered and respited their appeal, that might be incurring an useless expence without conferring any benefit upon either party, and was therefore unnecessary. (2)
- Bat where an order was made four days before the Mandamus
refused. sessions commenced, and the sessions lasted three days more. The contending parties were not more than ten miles from each other, and the place of the sessions not above eight miles from the party complaining. A mandamus being moved for, Lord Mansfield, C. J.--The single question is, whether the sessions have done wrong, in (3) admitting the excuse offered for not appealing at the next sessions after the order of removal. For all the facts of imputation thrown out against the removing parties are out of the case. Whether there is a sufficient 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
(1) Rex. v. Justices of Flintshire, 7 Term Rep. 200. (2) Rex r. Justices of Essex, 1 B.&A. 210.
(5) So in all the editions of Mr. Const's work, but the sense seems to require that it should be read ir not admitting.
age of him; a fact they might have known in less than half an hour. Here the parish officers were negligent. : - Rule for the mandamus discharged. (1)
Likewise, on a rule to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to the defendants, to receive an appeal against an order of removal. It appeared that 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 Easter sessions were held at Hereford, 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 morning. The parish not having appealed at those Easter sessions, the justices at the Midsummer sessions refused to receive the appeal, because not made at the next quarter sessions, according to 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. s. 2. The foundation of the application was, that as the officers of the parish to which the pauper was removed had not sufficient time 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. Lord Kenyon, C.J.-The words of the act of parliament are very strong, and they require the appeal to be made at the next sessions after the grievance. Where, indeed, an order of removal has been made some time before, and only executed 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 sessions to give reasonable notice of appeal, the appeal might have been then entered, and adjourned,
(1) Rex v. Justices of Wilts, 2 Bott, 717. Pl. 799,
according to the statute 9 Geo. I. c.7. s. 8. charged. (1)
An order of removal from a township in W. R. of When necesYorkshire, to a parish in Middlesex, was executed on and try.
sary to enter 12th January, the Yorkshire Epiphany sessions were on the 18th of that month. An appeal was offered to be entered and respited at the Easter sessions following, but no notice was given that the parish was then ready to try the appeal. The sessions refusing to receive the appeal, the court of B. R. thought that the parish was not strictly entitled to pass over the first sessions, and though, if they had done as much as they ought to have done at the second, the court would have relieved them, yet not having done so, by placing themselves in a situation to be then heard, there was not sufficient ground for granting a mandamus.(2)
The Appellant's attorney was applied to by the parish Mandamus.
Practice of officers of Storeston on the 19th of April, to enter an ap- session not peal against an order of removal, and get it respited till the sufficiently next sessions, and he gave notice to the respondents, of the promulged. appeal and respite. At the next sessions, which were on the 26th of April, an appeal was entered, and respited to Midsummer sessions, held the 26th of July. On the 2d of July, the appellant's attorney learned, for the first time, that the sessions had made certain rules for their practice, which were not published till after the April sessions, nor acted upon, nor officially circulated till the Midsummer sessions, and required, that in all kinds of appeals, the notice of trial should be given in the week on or before the Monday in the week next before the sessions, otherwise to be deemed insufficient, and that the like notice should be given in the case of respited appeals. Notice of trial was served on the respondents on Tuesday, the 5th of July, at
(1) Reg. v. Justices of Herefordshire, 3 Term Rep. 504.
(2) Rex v. Justices of West Riding of Yorkshire, 4 M. & S. 327. As to when they need not enter and respite, see Rex v. Justices of Essex, ante, 505. (2).
six in the morning, dated the day before, being as soon as
Mandamus, Rule on defendants to shew cause, why a mandamus
laway and his family were removed from Richmond to
The application was founded on the affidavit of one of the parish officers of Mortlake, which stated, that the order of removal dated on the 11th January then last, was ese cuted in the afternoon of that day: that the sessions for the county of Surry began on the next day, viz. the 12th January; and that there was not sufficient time to procure any information respecting Kellaway's settlement, or the requisite evidence to support an appeal, or even to ascertain whether such appeal ought to be made: that, according to the practice of the sessions in the county of Surry, notice must be served on the respondent parish by the ap. pellant of their intention to try such appeal, at least six
(1) Rex v. Justices of Wiltshire, 10 East, 404.
clear days previously to the commencement of the sessions: that due notice having been given for the Easter sessions the appeal was according entered, but the court refused to hear the appeal, on the ground that it ought to have been entered at the Epiphany sessions, and respited until the next sessions.
Park and Lawes shewed cause, and relied on the affidavit of Charles John Lawson, Esq. clerk of the peace for the county of Surry, which stated, that by the course and prac- . tice of the several quarter sessions held for the said county, (which sessions are always adjourned for a certain time,) appeals on orders of removal of a pauper may be and are lodged at any time during the sitting of the next general quarter sessions, or at the adjournment thereof, held after the making any such order, without notice thereof being given to the respondents; and that the consideration of such appeal is thereupon adjourned to the next general quarter sessions after that iu which it is so lodged as aforesaid. And further, that the last Epiphany general quarter sessions of the peace for the said county commenced on the 12th of January 1813, and lasted fourteen days, when aux 1993 ist viib. the same was adjourned to the 2d of February following, (which adjournment lasted one day,) and again adjourned to the 1st of March then following, which adjournment lasted two days. It was stated also, that Newington, where the Epiphany sessions were holden, was distant only eight miles from Mortlake. They admitted, that the words of the stat, 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. s. 2. which directs the appeal to be at the next quarter sessions, meant the next possible sessions (1); but in the present case, adverting to the prac tice as set forth in the affidavit of the elerk of the peace, the Epiphany sessions must be considered as the next possible sessions ; for it appeared, that the appeal might have been lodged at any time during the sessions, or adjournment thereof, without notice to the respondents. [Bayley. J. How can parties who live in distant counties know what
(1) Rex v. Justices of Yorkshire, Dougl. 192. 4th ed.