removals. If the judgment upon an appeal, against an order of 1. Order on removal, be for the appellant, it is, 1st, to allow the appeal against appeal; 2d, To quash the order. When, for the respondent, 1st, To dismiss the appeal; 2d, To confirm the order. The court may likewise confirm an order in part, and quash it as to the remainder; as when a pauper and his children are removed, and the settlement of the pauper appears to be in one parish, and that of the children in another. The court gives costs to the successful party; and in cases where the order is quashed, directs an allowance for the pauper's maintenance, from the time of removal to that of the judgment. An allowance of the appeal is no quashing of the order of two justices, although costs are given. (1) If, therefore, the sessions intend, in such case, to decide upon the question of settlement, the original order should be quashed. Allowing appeal does not quash the original order. sary to state Where an order is quashed generally, that must be taken Where necesto be upon the merits. (2) It may sometimes be quashed the grounds of for a defect really formal, but which is so far considered as adjudication. substance, that it cannot be amended under 5 Geo. II. c. 19. As, where an order is quashed for want of a proper adjudication of the pauper's last legal settlement (3); or upon some other ground not directly connected with the question of settlement; as if the respondents are unable to prove the pauper actually chargeable. (4) In such cases the grounds of the adjudication should appear in the order, to prevent the parties being concluded by the judgment, and enable them to try the merits by a fresh order of removal and appeal. (5) intend that it was quashed upon the merits, and when for want of form, see infra, (2). (1) Per Lord Hardwicke C.J., Rex v. Sarratt, Burr. S.C. 75. 2 Bott, 693. Pl. 754. (2) Per Lord Kenyon C.J., Rex v. St. Andrew's, Holborn, 6 Term Rep. 613. But it seems only to amount to a presumption which may be rebutted by evidence, see Rex v. Osgathorpe, infra, (4). (3) See Rex v. St. Andrew's, Holborn, supra (2). (4) Rex v. Osgathorpe, Burr. S.C. 261. (5) See post, 580. But if the original order is quashed, and appears Order to dismiss appeal. 2. Form of orders on rates. allowed. When an appeal is dismissed upon the merits, the original order is generally confirmed, because the respondents to succeed must have established all the material facts stated in the order, of which the place of settlement is one. If an appellant succeeds in his appeal against a rate, the judgment is to allow the appeal, and either to quash When appeal or amend the rate, as the case requires. If amended, the amendments should be specifically stated in the order. Such as, that the name of some person omitted to be rated be inserted; or that of the appellant, if improperly inserted be struck out; or that the sum at which any person is assessed be altered; and the order should go on to direct, that this alteration, whatever it be, be made "forthwith" in the rate by the officer of the court. May order rate not to be paid. Sect. 8. or to be repaid. Where dis missed. And now by 41 Geo. III. c. 23. sect. 3. the sessions, when a rate is quashed, may direct by their order that the sums assessed on particular persons, or any part of it, shall not be paid, which is necessary in some cases, in order to stop the commencement or, continuance of proceedings to enforce payment. Also by sect. 8. of the same statute, if the court shall order the names of any persons who have paid the rate previous to the hearing of the appeal, to be struck out of the rate, or their assessments lowered, their order must further direct, that such sums as ought not to have been received by the parish officers shall be repaid by them to the party. If the court are of opinion that the appeal is made without foundation, their judgment is to dismiss the appeal, defective on the face of it, a special entry seems unnecessary, although it may be safe to make it. For in such a case it shall be intended that it was reversed, for a defect in form. See South Cadbury v. Braddon, 2 Salk. 607. and post, 615. (2). and confirm the rate. 17 Geo. II. c. 38. s. 6. enacts, "that if, upon appeal from the whole rate, it should be found necessary to quash or set aside the same, then, and in every such case, the said justices shall, and are hereby required to order and direct the churchwardens and overseers of the poor to make a new equal rate or assessment." But whether this clause is to be considered only as directory, so that an omission of the direction to make a new rate does not affect the order at all; or whether it vitiates it in toto, or leaves it valid pro tanto, are questions which have not been judicially considered. The judgment should be direct and positive. An order Orders cannot of sessions drawn up specially, for the purpose of obtain- be conditional. ing the opinion of the court, concluded," and if the court should be of opinion, then," &c. This was held naught; for the justices ought to determine one way or other, and not to make a special conclusion referring to the court; but it was referred to the judge of assize. (1) So also where the sessions, upon hearing an appeal against an order of removal, were equally divided in opinion, and stated a case for the determination of the court of king's bench, but neither affirmed nor discharged the original order; the court of king's bench refused to give judgment, and sent the case back to sessions, that they might affirm or discharge it. (2) SECT. V. Of the Costs and Maintenance to be awarded by the Sessions in Appeals. THE 8 & 9 W. III. c.30. s. 3. for the more effectually 8&9 W. III. preventing vexatious removals and frivolous appeals, c. 30. Costs on appeals enacts, that the justices, at their general or quarter ses- against remo (1) Anon., 2 Salk. 486. (2) Rex v. Kniveton, Burr. S. C. 499. See post, 605. (1). vals. Costs usually allowed. Quære, if sessions have discretionary power to award costs. sions, " The words of the statute seem imperative upon the magistrates, to allow some costs where an appeal is heard, or notice of appeal has been given against an order of removal. The following case, however, is reported: "A mandamus was directed to the justices to give costs to the party, in whose favour the appeal had been determined." But, upon the return, the court held it reasonable for them to have the power of judging, whether costs should be allowed or not, and quashed the writ of mandamus. (1) (1) Rex v. Justices of Nottingham, 5 Geo. I. 2 Bott, 748. Pl. 841. The subject of this appeal does not appear by the report. But as it was prior to stat. 17 Geo. II. c. 38. which first gives costs in appeals against poor's rates, it seems to have been an appeal against an order of removal. If this be the same case as is reported, Rex v. Justices of Nottingham, 5 Geo. II. Sess. Cas. 422., it is there stated to have been an appeal against an order of removal, and that the justices had allowed 30s. for costs and maintenance, and the court only determined, that the justices had a discretionary power as to the sum to be allowed, and not that they had power to refuse costs altogether. It is to be observed, likewise, that the words of 9 Geo.I. c. 76. which enacts, that the justices shall award the sums intended for the pauper's maintenance, are It is usual, however, for the sessions to allow some costs. But, as they have a discretionary power over the amount, it is customary to give 40s. unless the case has been accompanied with circumstances of vexation or fraud. costs can be It was held by a judge sitting at nisi prius, where the Quære, if parish officers, against whom costs were awarded, paid recovered them, and afterwards the order of removal was removed back if order quashed? into the court of king's bench by certiorari, and quashed: that they could not recover them back again from those by whom they were received, upon an action of indebitatus assumpsit. (1) An order for costs need not set forth that so much was expended or laid out (2): and the sessions cannot give costs on the mere adjournment of an appeal. (3) 17 Geo.II. c.38. s. 4. enacts, that in cases of appeals against poor's rates, the justices "may award to the party, for whom such appeal shall be determined, reasonable costs, the same manner that they are impowered to do in cases of similar to those of 8 & 9 W. III. c.30. respecting costs; and it has been determined, that the words of 9 Geo. I. are imperative so as to make it necessary for the sessions to award the costs of maintenance where they have been incurred, and the appeal is allowed. St. Mary Nottingham v. Kirklington, post, 575. (2). Ideo quære. (1) Mead v. Death and Pollard, 1 Lord Raym. 742. Decided by Tracy Baron, Chelmsford Lent assizes. Quære, tamen the reason of this decision. The reporter adds, “But note also, that the costs were paid by the churchwardens and overseers, and this action was brought by the churchwardens alone." And by the opinion of Lord Ellenborough C.J., "It is a consequence of law, that the money paid upon an order which is afterwards vacated in whole or in part should be refunded by those who have received it, and if it be not repaid, an action for money had and received would lie to recover it back again." Rex v. Bradford, Mich. 48 Geo. III. 9 East, 97. (2) This was an order for costs upon 9 Geo. I. c. 7. Maiden Bradley v. Wallingford, Fol. 247. (3) Rex v. Stansfield, Burr. S. C. 205. |
