no notice

given.

ation was in August, and the order of removal was dated respite, where the 12th of November following (1); and the sessions, where the appeal was tendered, was held on the 12th of January in the ensuing year; that no notice of appeal had been served, (for which the reason assigned was, that the appellants had not been able to get their witnesses ready, till it was too late to give such notice,) that the court had been moved to receive the appeal, and adjourn the consideration of it, till the following sessions, and that they had refused to do it. The court were clearly of opinion that the justices ought to have received the appeal, and the rule was made absolute. (2)

But on a similar application, where the order of removal was made on the 26th November, and executed on the 28th, it appeared that the appellant attended the next quarter sessions, held on the 13th of January, and moved the court for leave to lodge the appeal, and to respite the hearing thereof, to the then next quarter sessions. The following entry was made by the quarter sessions: "For as much as it appears to this court, that there has been sufficient time, since the removal of the pauper, for the appellants to give notice, and come prepared to try this appeal at this sessions, and no cause shewn why they did not proceed accordingly, it is ordered that the notice for lodging the same, and respiting the hearing to the next quarter sessions, be rejected." The court was of opinion that the justices had not acted wrong; for the motion was in effect to adjourn the appeal; and it was evidently the intention of the parties not to enter the appeal unless the court would adjourn it. The justices are to judge of the reasonableness of the time, and in some counties they establish a rule regulating the time of notice. Here it appears, that the order of removal was executed on the 28th of November, so that there was sufficient time for the appellants to give notice, and to come prepared to try

(1) The date of the removal does not appear, but the January sessions was the next sessions after the date of the order.

(2) Rex v. Justices of Gloucestershire, Doug.191. 2 Bott, 711. Pl. 785.

Where respondents at

notice, the

sessions must adjourn the appeal.

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

Yet where an appeal against an order of removal, being 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 being of that opinion dismissed the appeal, although the 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.

18

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.

rates, and

The form of notice in appeals against poor rates, and the Notice of apaccounts of churchwardens and overseers, is principally re- peals against gulated by 41 Geo. III. c. 23., which enacts, sect. 4. that all overseers' acnotices of appeal against or from any rate for the relief of counts, regu lated by the poor, or against or from any accounts of the church- 41 Geo. II. wardens and overseers, shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the person or persons giving the same, or his, her, or their attorney on their behalf; and such notices shall be delivered, or left at the place of abode of the churchwardens, 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, 549.; 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.

c. 23. s.4. signed by ap In writing, and pellants or their attornies.

By sect. 5. objections not in notice may be heard by con

sent.

Objections to be stated in notice of appeal against a poor's rate.

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.

But it is provided by sect. 5. that with the consent of the overseers, signified by them or their attorney in open court, 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,

1st, That the rate has not been made by the proper persons (2); 2d, nor for a proper place (3); 3d, nor duly allowed (4); 4th, nor properly published (5); 5th, that the 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.vii. (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,

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 45 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. Undertakers of the Aire and Calder Navigation. Hil. Sit. 5 Geo. IV. 2 B. & C.713.

(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 v. 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. 25. 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. Rep. 580.

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

Durrant v. Boys, 6 Term.