Sivut kuvina

it; and the justices, who are to judge of this, thought so.(1)

Where re

Yet where an appeal against an order of removal, being spondents at the trial object lodged at the next sessions, came on then to be heard, and to the reason, the parish removing objected to the notice, as not being ableness of the reasonable according to the practice of the court, the sessions sessions must being of that opinion dismissed the appeal, although the adjourn the appeal.

appellant's counsel had moved to adjourn it agreeably to 9 Geo. I. c.7. s.8. But the court of King's Bench, on a motion for a mandamus to enter a continuance until the ensuing sessions, and then to hear and determine the appeal, were of opinion that the justices had done wrong, and were bound to adjourn it.

For per Lawrence, J. (2) — " There can be no doubt about the construction of this act." (9 Geo. I. c. 7. s. 8.) Before the stat. 9 Geo. I. it was supposed that if a parish, to which a removal was made, appealed to the next sessions after the order of removal was served upon it, the sessions were bound to hear and determine the appeal, although the removing parish had not had sufficient time to prepare itself: to remedy which that act was passed, which directs that no appeal from any order of removal shall be proceeded upon, unless reasonable notice be given, of which the justices in sessions are to judge. That is, they are to judge whether such reasonable notice has or has not been given, as will entitle either party to proceed upon the appeal ; but the act goes on expressly to direct, that if it shall appear to the justices, that reasonable notice was not given, then they shall adjourn the appeal to the next quarter sessions. Now here the sessions have determined that reasonable notice was not given; notwithstanding which, instead of adjourning the hearing of the appeal, as required by the act, they have,

(1) Rex v. Justices of North Riding of Yorkshire, 3 Term. Rep.150. But see Rex v. Justices of Gloucestershire, ante, 519, (2), where the motion was likewise to lodge and respite. (2) The only judge in court.


against the positive direction of it, dismissed the appeal. There is no ground for supporting their determination. (1)

An appeal was lodged at the next sessions after an order of removal made, and was moved to be adjourned on the part of the appellants, no notice having been given to the respondents; but the sessions being of opinion that there had been sufficient time for the appellants to have given such notice after the order had been executed, and before the holding of the sessions, dismissed the appeal. A rule being obtained, calling upon the defendants to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to them, commanding them to receive and enter a continuance on the said appeal to the next general quarter sessions, and there to hear and determine the matter of the said appeal, it was made absolute, without opposition. - Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The opinion delivered in the case of the King v. the Justices of Buckinghamshire, had been well considered; and the court were satisfied that the statute was compulsory on the sessions, in these cases, to receive and adjourn the appeal. (2)

2d. Of the form of the notice.

The form of notice in appeals against poor rates, and the Notice of ap. accounts of churchwardens and overseers, is principally re

peals against gulated by 41 Geo. III. c. 23., which enacts, sect. 4. that all overseers' ac

rates, and notices of appeal against or from any rate for the relief of counts, reguthe poor, or against or from any accounts of the church- 41 Geo. II. wardens and overseers, shall be in writing, and shall be c. 23. 8. 4. signed by the person or persons giving the same, or his, her, signed by“ap

In writing, and or their attorney on their behalf; and such notices shall be pellants or delivered, or left at the place of abode of the churchwardens, their attornies. and overseers, or any two of them; and the particular

(1) Rex v. Justices of Buckinghamshire, 3 East, 342. See also Anon. Fol. 261. Rex v. Justices of Leicestershire, ante, 500. S.P.

(2) Rex v. Justices of Shropshire, called by mistake Staffordshire, 7 East, 519.; and as materially connected with this subject, see the cases as to what sessions shall be considered the next, to which the appeal must be made, ante, 503.

causes or grounds of appeal shall be stated and specified in such notice; and upon the hearing, the sessions shall not inquire into any other causes, or grounds of appeal, than are specified therein.


By sect. 5. ob

But it is provided by sect. 5. that with the consent of the jections not in notice may be overseers, signified by them or their attorney in open court, heard by con- and with the consent of any other person interested therein,

the sessions may proceed to hear the appeal, although no notice has been given ; and with like consent they may hear grounds of appeal, not stated or mistated, in such notice, where it shall be given. (1)

All objections, whether they render the rate liable to be quashed, or entitle the party to special relief by amendment, are grounds of appeal to the quarter sessions. They have been fully detailed in speaking of the rate itself, and are principally,

Objections to 1st, That the rate has not been made by the proper be stated in notice of ap- persons (2); 2d, nor for a proper place (3); 3d, nor duly peal against a allowed (4); 1th, nor properly published (5); 5th, that the poor's rate.

principle of the rate is altogether defective, either from the mode of making it, or from particular classes of property being wrongfully assessed (6); 6th, or improperly omitted (7); 7th, or not sufficiently described (8), that the ge

(1) As to the construction of this section, see ante, chap. xxxv. s. Fil.
(2) Ante, Vol. I. 62.
(3) Ib.39.
(4) Ib. 62.

(5) Ib. 64. (6) Ib. 220. Rex v. Hill, ib.166. Rex v. Rodd, ib.166.

(7) Rex v. Guardians of the Poor of Canterbury, 4 Burr. 2290. Rex v. Justices of Berkshire, 3 Dougl. on Elect.132. Rex v. Whitney, ante, Vol. I, 167.

(8) A rate specified the names of the individuals charged; the sum on which they had been assessed; and the assessment thus, Occupier.


11. 38. 9d.

2s. 10d.
It was objected upon an appeal against the rate, that it did not appear
for what property the assessment was made. It was argued that the
person being rated as occupier, satisfied the words of 43 Eliz. c. 2. and

neral proportion of assessment is defective and unequal (1); 8th, that the appellant is over-rated for property which he does occupy (2); 9th, rated for property which he does not occupy (3); 10th, for property which, though occupied, is not a subject matter of rate (4); 11th, that persons specified are under-rated (5); 12th, or rated for property for which they ought not to be assessed (6); 13th, that occupiers or persons of sufficient ability are omitted (7); 14th, that some purposes for which the rate is made are not warranted by law (8); 15th, that it is made for a longer time than is necessary; for no man ought to be put to inconvenience by having a larger sum taken out of his pocket at once, than the exigencies of the parish reasonably require (9); 16th, that it is defective in point of form; 17th, want of jurisdiction in the sessions to try it. (10)

As many of these causes of appeal should be included in the notice as the appellant has fair and reasonable expectation of being able to sustain at the hearing.

The grounds of objection must be set forth with sufficient Objections clearness and precision, to enable the parish officers to distinctly set

forth, must

that the act did not require any specification of the property. But by the
court the objection to the form of the rate is decisive. If any person
wished to appeal on the ground that another is underrated; how could
he tell in respect of what property the rate was imposed? Rex v. Un-
dertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation. Hil. Sit. 5 Geo.IV.
2 B. & C.715.

(1) Rex v. Sandwich, &c. Vol. I. 238.
(2) Rex v. Cheshunt, 2 Term. Rep. 623, &c.
(3) Ante, Vol.I. 169. et seq.
(4) Rex o. White, ib.166. n. (6), &c.
(5) Rex v. Mast, ante, Vol. I. 200, &c.

(6) See 17 Geo. II. c. 38. sect. 4. 41 Geo. III. c. 23. sect. 6. ante, 487. (2).

(7) Ante, 522. (6).
(8) Rex v. Micklefield, Cald. 207. ante, Vol.I. 67.

(9) Rex v. Maddern, 1 Term. Rep. 625. Durrant v. Boys, 6 Term. Rep. 580.

(10) Lowther u. Lord Radnor, 8 East, 113.

specify names of persons omitted.

come prepared to meet that case which the appellant meditates to make good against them; and he cannot enter upon those which are not so stated, without the consent required by 41 Geo. III. chap. 23. Thus, if an objection be, that particular persons are omitted in the rate, their names should be specified in the notice. (1)

[blocks in formation]

It seems also, from the express words of 41 Geo. III. c. 23. that more persons than one may join in giving their notice, where they have joined in preferring their appeal. (2)

Form of notice The form of notices in the case of appeals, against orders on appeals

of removal, is not so complicated. The 9 Geo. I. c.7. s. 8. reagainst removals. quires, that it shall be given by the churchwardens and

overseers of the parish or place, who shall make the appeal to the churchwardens or overseers of the poor

of the parish or place from which the paupers have been removed. It ought, therefore, to be addressed to the church wardens

and overseers of the parish from which the removal is Signing. made. It must be signed by the parish officers of the ap

pellant parish, or, as is most usual, by their attorney (3);

and if it be signed by or on behalf of a majority, it is sufDate. ficient. (4) It is safe and usual likewise, although perhaps

(1) Rex v. Justices of Berkshire, 3 Glenb. on Elect.132. Bott, 267. Pl. 264.

(2) See Rex v. Justices of Sussex, 15 East, 206. ante, 487.(2)

(3) See Jory v. Orchard, that a demand (or notice) signed by the plaintiff's attorney for him, is a demand signed by the plaintiff. ?Bos. & Pull. 39.

(4) The 8th sect. 9 Geo. I. c.7. speaking of the time of notice to be given of appeals from orders of removal, says, “ that no appeals shall be proceeded on, unless reasonable notice be given by the churchwardens and overseers of the parish appealing, unto the churchwardens and overseers of the other parish.” But it never was imagined that a notice, given only by three churchwardens, was insufficient; the contrary opinion has always been held. Per Buller J. Rex v. Beeston, 3 Term. Rep. 592.

« EdellinenJatka »