Sivut kuvina

though not of the facts themselves. (1) A case, therefore, must state facts and not evidence. But this is meant, that they must draw their own conclusion upon what is asserted by the witnesses, and state that conclusion as the fact, instead of the evidence upon which it is founded; otherwise the court, where it is material to the question before them, will send the case down to be better stated. (2)

Instances of facts which must be stated.

Thus the place of a birth is a fact which must be found, where a settlement may turn upon it. (3) As also, whether there has been a hiring for a year, if that be material to the pauper's settlement. (4) So, in a question upon the validity of a settlement by indentures of apprenticeship, if it be not stated that the indentures are not stamped with a 6d. stamp, that fact cannot come before the court, for they cannot take notice of any thing but what is strictly before them by the order. (5) So, whether a master give a particular consent to his apprentice to serve a third person, is a fact which the justices should find, and not state evidence of it. (6) They must also state in what parish or township the place of the pauper's residence is situate. (7)

Likewise, upon a question of settlement by estate, the sessions ought to find whether it is a gift or a purchase. (8) And in one respecting a settlement by being

(1) Per Lord Hardwicke C.J., Rex v. Tedford, ante, 558. (3).
(2) Rex v. Martley, Burr. S.C. 120.

(3) Ib.

(4) Rex v. Bray, Burr. S.C. 682.

(5) Rex v. St. Peter's, Chester, i Bott, 544. Pl. 745.; ante, Vol. I. 521. (3).

(6) Per Lord Kenyon C.J., Rex v. Shebbear, 1 East, 73.; ante, Vol. I. 567. (3).

(7) Rex v. Friendsbury, Burr. S.C. 644.

(8) Per Buller J., Rex v. Warblington, i Term Rep. 241. ? Bott, 495. Pl. 512.; ante, 109.(1).

rated, they should set forth as a fact, whether the landlord
or tenant is rated. (1)

Fraud is a fact which the sessions must expressly find; Fraud must be it is not enough to state such evidence as would be sufficient found as a

to induce the superior court to conclude that it did exist in
the case. Thus, it must be specifically found that the
renting a tenement at 10l. per annum was fraudulent (2);
or, that a pauper was fraudulently ejected from premises,
in order to prevent his gaining a settlement by residing
there forty days (3); or that a certificate was fraudulently
granted (4); for the court of king's bench will not infer it,
however strong the circumstances which are stated may be
to warrant such a conclusion.

[ocr errors]

Likewise, in examining these questions, “ the justices Fraud cognizare only to consider concerning frauds which regard the able only so

far as respects parish (in order to gain a settlement in it). They are not to the settlement. inquire concerning fraud between the parties; that would make them a court of chancery." (5)

If the sessions find the fact of fraud generally, the court B. R. how far

bound by a are bound by the finding. (6)

general finding

of fraud.
(1) Rex v. Rainham, 5 Term Rep. 240. 2 Bott, 741. Pl. 830. It is
not meant by this, and the foregoing instances, that these circumstances
must be stated in every case of settlement of that particular kind in
which they may occur ; but, that when they have a necessary relation
to the point in difference, the justices should state them as facts, instead
of leaving it to the court of K.B, to infer them as conclusions from
what is set forth. For the sessions cannot submit a question to the
judges upon the weight of evidence. See Rex v. Llanwinio, 4 Term
Rep. 371. post, 562.(1).

(2) Rex v. Weston, 2 Str. 1156. ante, 49. (3). S.C. by the name of
Rex v. Kirton; and see the opinion of Buller J., Rex v. Fillongley,
i Term Rep. 458. ante, 5.(1). Rex v. St. Margaret's in Lincoln, Burr.
S.C. 728.

(3) Rex v. Llanbedergoch, 7 Term Rep. 105. ante, 62. (1).
(4) Rex v. Tamworth, Burr. S.C. 770.
(5) Per Lord Hardwicke C.J., Rex v. Tedford, ante, 558. (3).

(6) Per Lord Hardwicke C.J., Rex v. Tedford, supra (5). Per Bul-
ler J., Rex v. Fillongley, supra, (2).


[ocr errors]

Thus, where the sessions, in a case stated for the opinion of the court of king's bench, found the taking of a tenement in H. to be fraudulent, and that it did not amount in the whole to 101. a year, but referred the question whether the pauper gained a settlement in H. notwithstanding the fraud; the parish of L. (in which he was previously settled) not being privy to the fraud, and there being contradictory evidence as to the value. The court thought, that the conclusion drawn by the justices was decisive; for they expressly state," that it was a fraudulent taking, and that it did not amount in the whole to 101. a-year.” (1)

facts are

B.R. may

de- But where the sessions stated in a case the facts under termine

which a purchase of a tenement was made for 391., and against their conclusion of concluded their case thus: “ This court doth declare and fraud, if the

adjudge, that the purchase made by Gill (i.e. that before stated. stated) was fraudulent, and that the settlement of Gill, &c.

was at Tedford (the parish in which he was settled previous to the purchase), but the parishioners of T. are no ways concerned in the said fraud.” Per Lord Hardwicke, C.J.

“ The justices are judges of the fact, and they may judge of the fraud arising from the fact; but we judge of the law upon the fact, though not of the facts themselves. If they had generally found the fraud, we might have been bound by such a general finding: but when they state the facts particularly, the matter is as much open for our determination upon it as it is for theirs.” The court afterwards quashed the order, being of opinion that the purchase was not fraudulent. (2)

B. R. concluded if sessions find a fact.

In a case stated upon a rate, the court held themselves concluded, by its being found as a fact by the sessions,

(1) Rex v. Llanwinio, 4 Term Rep. 373. 2 Bott, 741. Pl. 829. See also Rex v. St. Nicholas in Harwich, Burr. S.C. 171.

(2) Rex v. Tedford, ante, 561.(1). In this case, the court did not presume fraud, but determined that the sessions were not warranted by the facts of the case, in drawing the conclusion, that the purchase was fraudulent. See also the opinion of the judges, Rex v. St. Nicholas in Harwich, Burr. S.C. 171.

that the appellant was occupier of the property in question. (1)

In a case sent up for the court's determination, whether the landlord or his tenant was the person rated, the sessions set forth all the facts; and also stated, that, in their opinion, the landlord was intended to be rated. The court of king's bench were of opinion that this was a fact, which ought always to be found by the justices (2), and being so found in this case, held itself thereby concluded from entering into the question. (3)

That court decided likewise that it was concluded upon the question, whether the governor of a workhouse was a public annual office, by the sessions having found it to be so. (4)

“ In general, where a case is specially stated, that case Case shall be is taken to contain the full reason of the determination presurned in

general to be made by the sessions; and, therefore, if the court hold å full statethose reasons to be ill, they will quash the order of ment. sessions." (5)

The justices should, therefore, not only state all the facts Must state the

actual case. which they consider necessary to enable the court of king's bench to form an opinion upon the point of law, respecting which they want information (6), but they should likewise set forth all those which are material and were proved before them, that it may be a true state of the case. (7) For the inferior court cannot apply to the superior for its advice upon speculative points of law, but should confine them

(1) Rex v. Hurdis, 3 Term Rep. 497. ante, Vol. I. 199. (5).
(2) See Rex v. Rainham, 5 Term Rep. 240.
(3) Rex v. Folkstone, 3 Term Rep. 505.
(4) Rex v. Ilminster, ante, Vol. I. 620. (2).
(5) Per Lee and Page Js., Rex v. 'Tedford, ante, 558. (3).
(6) See Rex v. Dursley, 6 Term Rep. 53. i Bott, 289. Pl. 280.
(7) See the opinion of Lord Hardwicke C. J., Rex v. Tedford,

supra (5)

selves to such as are necessary to determine the appeal before them.

Instances in cases stated upon a rate.

Thus, upon an appeal, because personal property was not rated, a case was stated, omitting by consent of counsel, the fact of usage in the parish as to rating it, in order to bring the general question of its rateability before the court. But the judges, who were at that time of opinion that the circumstance of parochial usage was material in deciding the particular case, declared, that the sessions and counsel had no right to waive stating it, and ordered the case to be referred back to the sessions, for the purpose of finding this

fact. (1)

[ocr errors]

facts sur

Statement of But the statement of an immaterial or irrelevant fact will irrelevant

not prevent the court from deciding upon the merits of a
plusage. case (2); and they seem never to have remitted one back
B.R. does not to the sessions, in order to find the fact of fraud, however
remit to have
fraud found.

pregnant such a conclusion might be on the evidence
stated. (3)

Sect. IV.

Of the Form of the Order or Judgment upon the Appeal.

Order must state the session's jurisdiction.

If a particular jurisdiction does not shew the matter (4) to be within their authority, it must be concluded to be out of it. (5)

The sessions must, therefore, set forth in their orders upon matters of appeal, as well as in other cases, sufficient facts to shew a jurisdiction.

(1) Rex v. Francis Hill, Cowp. 613. 1 Bott, 275. Pl. 269.

(2) Rex v. Minchin Hampton, 3 Burr. 1310. a case upon a rate.
Rex v. Middlezoy, 2 Term Rep. 41. case upon a settlement.

(5) See the cases upon Fraud, ante, 561.
(4) i.e. upon which they make an order.

(5) Per Twisden J. ex relatione Holt C. J., Rex v. Audley, 2 Salk.

« EdellinenJatka »