Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

ing the ses

The sessions being in contemplation of law accounted but May alter their as one day, the justices may alter their judgment at any time judgment durwhile it continues. They may, therefore, make an order sions. to vacate a former one made during the same sessions. (1) Thus, after quashing an order of removal, they may supersede their first order, and make a new one to confirm the original order. (2)

but not at one subsequent, unless appeal continued to

But, in such a case, they ought to set the first wholly aside, and enter up the last as the only order. For the effect of the court's setting aside the first is, that it ceases to be an order, and consequently ought not to be re- it. turned to the court of king's bench as an order vacated by another order, but should be annulled and made nothing. (3) The justice's power expires with the sessions, unless continued to the next by adjournment. (4) Where an order of removal, therefore, was quashed at one sessions, and the ensuing sessions made an order of review, and quashed the order of the former sessions, because made by surprise; the court of king's bench were of opinion, that the order of review must be quashed, for the justices have no power after the first sessions. (5)

this case. And upon their opinion the order was confirmed. Rex v. Har field, Carth. 222.

St. Andrew's, Holborn, v. 6 Mod. 287. S. C. Rex v.

Also, in a recent case, when

(1) St. Andrew's, Holborn, v. St. Clement Danes, 2 Salk. 495. (2) Battersea v. Westham, 5 Mod. 396. St. Clement Danes, 2 Salk. 494. ib. 606. Justices of Leicestershire, 1 M. & S. 442. a certain number of magistrates, in the early part of the day, appointed a person surgeon of the county gaol: and another set, in a subsequent part of the same day, appointed another person. The court of King's Bench held the latter appointment good, and the former vacated. Rex v. Justices of Glamorganshire. This, however, is a very dangerous power to exercise, as the same magistrates seldom continue to sit during the whole of the sessions; and if the second order is made without good reason to warrant it, the court would, in all probability, grant an information against the magistrates who concurred in making it.

(3) Per Holt C.J., St. Andrew's, Holborn, v. St. Clement Danes, ante (1).

(4) See ante, 535.

(5) Rex v. Cuckfield, 2 Salk. 477. Pridgeon's case, Cro. Car. 341.

2. Jurisdiction of sessions

over poor's rates arises

from an appeal.

Might make a rate, prior to

17 Geo. II. C. 38.

By 17 Geo. II. must order the

The jurisdiction of the sessions over poor's rates corresponds in most respects with that over appeals against removals. Their power arises out of the appeal. They cannot, therefore, make an original order on the parish officers to make a rate (1), neither can their orders relate to the future payment of rates. (2)

Further, if the sessions make an order directing two districts of the same parish to contribute to the maintenance of the poor of the entire parish in certain proportions, it is extra-judicial and void. (3)

Prior to 17 Geo. II. c. 38. the sessions might quash the old rate (4), and either order the parish officers to make a new one (5), or do it themselves. (6)

This last power was attended with much inconvenience. The facts required to enable the justices to make a new rate must often exceed their knowledge; and the inquiries necessary to obtain exact information took more time than they could spare. (7) Those also who were aggrieved by such a rate, had no opportunity of appealing against it. (8)

To remedy these inconveniences, it was enacted by 17 Geo. II. that if, "upon appeal from the whole rate,

ante, 315. (3). Road v. North-Bradley, 2 Str. 1168. Rex v. Michaelstone Vedoes, post, 558. (4).

(1) Rex v. Aberford East, 2 Ld. Raym. 798.
Comb. 133.

(2) Rex v. Wrexham Regis, 1 Bott, 101. Pl. 126.
(3) Rex v. Newell, 4 Term Rep. 266.

Garret v. Foot,

(4) Case of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, Holt, 508.

c. 38. s. 6.

(5) Rex v. Aberford East, 2 Ld. Raym. 798. supra, (1).

17 Geo. II.

(6) Rex v. Audley, 2 Salk. 526. Rex v. Justices of Shrewsbury, 2 Str. 975. 17 Geo. II. c. 38. s. 6.

(7) Per Ashhurst J., Rex v. Maddern, 1 Term Rep. 625.

(8) Eod. Jud. ibid.; and see 17 Geo. II. c. 38. s. 6.; and 41 Geo. III. c. 23. s. 6. post, 555.

make a new

rate.

it shall be found necessary to quash or set aside the same, officers to 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 one; and they are hereby required to make the same accordingly."

SECT. II.

Of Amendments by the Court of Sessions.

any

c. 19.

THE power of amending orders of removal by the ses- 1. Of amendsions is given by 5 Geo. II. c. 19. which enacts, that upon ing orders of all appeals to be made to the justices of the peace, at their Power given respective general or quarter sessions, against judgments by 5 Geo. II. or orders given or made by any justices of the peace, the justices, at any general or quarter sessions, shall "cause any defect or defects of form, that shall be found in such original judgment or orders, to be rectified or amended, without any cost or charge to the parties concerned; and after such amendment made, shall proceed to hear, examine, and consider the truth and merits of all matters concerning such original judgments or orders," and make such determination thereon, as if there had not been such defect or want of form in the original proceeding.

This power is confined entirely to the amendment of Confined to defects or mistakes of form, which appear upon the face mistakes in

of the order.

form.

able.

The inhabitants of Great Bedwin appealed to the ses- What defects sions, from an order of justices beginning thus: "Wilts, not amendto wit. To the churchwardens, &c. of the parish of Wilcot, and to the churchwardens, &c. of the parish of Great Bedwin, in the said county." And it states, that C. M. and his family have dwelt for some time in Wilcot, under a certificate from Great Bedwin; and then goes on thus: "Now the said C. M. being reduced to great poverty, lately applied to the churchwardens, &c. of the parish of

The

Wilcot aforesaid, who accordingly did relieve him,” and therefore the justices remove him to Great Bedwin. sessions, on motion on behalf of the parish of Wilcot, suggesting defects in form, and praying that they may be amended, pursuant to 5 Geo. II. c. 19., were of opinion that the original order was amendable by the act; for it appears to them, on due examination upon oath, that the said order was really and truly made by the two justices, on the complaint of the churchwardens, &c. of Wilcot, in due manner made to them on that behalf, "that the said C. M. his wife and children, are actually become chargeable to Wilcot: but that the omitting to mention it was a mere mistake in drawing up the order; that it doth also appear to this court, that the said G. H. and J. S. were, at the time of the making the said order, two of his majesty's justices of the peace for the said county of Wilts, and one of them of the quorum, and that the omitting to mention the same was also a mere mistake in drawing up the said order; and that the said defects were amended in court. Lee C. J.-The act directs that the sessions shall amend defects in form, and afterwards proceed on the merits: one would think that this meant defects, or mistakes appearing upon the face of the order, mere defects or wants of form. But some of these matters here amended seem to be merits: as the adding, "upon complaint of the overseers of the parish from whence the paupers were removed," without which complaint the justices have no jurisdiction. (1) Then what can be more of the merits, than the certificate man's having become actually chargeable. (2) Now the two justices have not adjudged that; they only say, that he applied to the overseers, and was relieved by them, but it does not appear that it was at the parish expence. (3) If there be any opposition between form and merits, these matters must be merits. As to their being justices of the county, a plain reference to the

(1) Ante, 218. (3).

(2) Ante, 220. ib. 225. (2).
(3) Ante, 197.

margin is sufficient; yet this is uncertain as it is worded, to which of the two parishes the words "in the said county" relate; they were both in Wiltshire. (1) The allowing such amendments as these to be within the true construction of this statute, would throw the determinations of all cases of this sort into the hands of the sessions. The other judges concurred; and Mr. Justice Wright added, that the sessions cannot amend any thing which requires examination; and the orders were quashed. (2)

jurisdiction,

matters of substance, and not amendable.

It appears from this and other cases, that all averments Statements of necessary to shew the magistrate's jurisdiction, to make the order in question, are matters of substance, and cannot be amended under this statute. Such as, if they do Such as, if they do not clearly state themselves to be justices for that county in which the place from whence the paupers are removed is situate. (3)

dering pauper to be removed

But where an order of removal was made, from the pa- Mistake in orrish of Luggershall to the parish of Harrow, upon an adjudication that the settlement was in Luggershall, and

(1) Ante, 218. et seq.

(2) Rex v. Great Bedwin, Burr. S. C. 163. Lord Kenyon C. J. observed upon this case: "It is now too late to discuss, whether or not the court of quarter sessions could amend in this case. It has been decided in Rex v. Great Bedwin, that the sessions can only amend mere defects or wants of form. I verily believe, that if the legislature had been asked what was their intention, when they passed the statute 5 Geo. II. c. 19. they would have said they meant, that if upon inquiry it appeared that the pauper had been removed to his proper parish, the sessions should have power to correct all defects in the orders; but the decision to which I before alluded, was made ten years after the passing of the act; and at the time when Lord C.J. Lee, who was peculiarly conversant in sessions law, presided here. And though I lament that that decision was made, because it renders the statute of little avail, yet it has been acted upon ever since, and it is of importance to adhere to determinations respecting settlements." Rex v. Chilvers Coton, 8 Term Rep. 178.

(5) Rex v. Stepney, ante, 215. (4). Rex v. Chilvers Coton, ib. Rex v. Moor Critchell. Rex v. St. Mary, Leicester, 216. (1), ib. (2).

to the parish

« EdellinenJatka »