« 이전계속 »
presumed, the language of the jurat being not be received on account of the insertion ambiguous, that the examination was in fact of the words “me” and “ I” in the jurat, taken before two Justices; and that the error where “us” and “we” ought respectively to afforded no ground for quashing the order of have been found : and thereupon discharged removal on appeal.
the said order of removal accordingly, subEspecially (per Williams, J.) the ground ject the opinion of the Court of Queen's of objection taken being in its language limited Bench upon their so doing. The question to an objection to the form of the jurat. for the opinion of the Court of Queen's
Bench was stated to be, whether the jurat On an appeal to the Quarter Sessions for in question was such as to require the said the West Riding of the county of York Court of Quarter Sessions to reject entirely against an order for the removal of Ann the examination on the face of which it Teasdale and her children from the township appeared. If the Court of Queen's Bench of Silkstone to the township of Cawthorne, should be of opinion that the Sessions ought the Sessions discharged the order, subject to to have overruled the objection above stated, the following case
the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions One of the examinations whereon the said to stand quashed, and the said original order order of removal was made was an examina- of removal to stand confirmed. tion of Martha Chappell, in which she stated Dundas and Sir G. Lewin, in support of that she well remembered the birth, at Caw- the order of Sessions, contended, that the thorne aforesaid, of George Teasdale, the defect apparent on the face of the jurat, was deceased husband of the pauper Ann Teas- fatal to the admission of the examination dale, and that she, the examinant, was pre- Ware v. Stanstead Mountfitchet (1), The sent when the said George Teasdale was King v. Stotfold (2). born at Cawthorne aforesaid. At the foot Erle and Pashley, contrà, contended, that of this examination was written, “Sworn on the face of the jurat itself, it might be inbefore me, the day and year first above ferred that two Magistrates were present, written; and I do hereby certify that the from their signatures at the end; and that if above examination was read over and ex- so, the Court would presume that the use of plained to the said examinant previously to the singular pronoun for the plural was a her being sworn thereto, who appeared per- mere mistake, as in The King v. St. Mary's, fectly to understand the same. W. Benet Leicester (3) Martin, H. Watkins." One of the grounds of appeal sent to the respondents was, that LORD Denman, C.J.-It is unfortunate the examination of Martha Chappell, upon that such a question should have been which the said order is in part founded, is raised, merely by reason of the person who illegal and bad, inasmuch as, though signed by drew up these documents not having contwo Justices, it purports to have been taken formed to the usual practice. But the
ground before one Justice only. On the trial of the of appeal here is, that the examination pursaid appeal, the counsel for the respondents ports to be taken before one Justice only. opened as their case the birth settlement of That ground of appeal is properly taken, the pauper's husband in the appellant town- and is quite intelligible. But this is a ship, as stated in the said examination, judicial act, in which every fair presumption whereon the said order of removal had been is to be made, that everything was rightly made, and which birth settlement the re- done, if the documents themselves leave it spondents were then prepared to establish doubtful: and I cannot say but that they by evidence ; whereupon, and before any do. I think, therefore, the order of Sessions evidence was given, the counsel for the ought to be quashed. appellants objected, that there was no suffi- Williams, J.-I have certainly considercient examination to support the order, &c. able reluctance in coming to the same conThe Court of Quarter Sessions decided, that clusion, and very much doubt the utility of the said order of removal must be discharged, upholding this examination. I think that inasmuch as the said examination of Martha
(1) 2 Salk. 488. Chappell, so signed as taken before two
(2) 4 Term Rep. 596. Justices, was rendered a nullity, and could
(3) I B. & Ald. 327.
TANTS OF STOWFORD,
when it is so easy to follow the usual course, 1842. THE QUEEN v.
Appeal-Examination-Evidence. ing it plain, is not to be considered con- Where an examination of a pauper set clusive against the admission of the exami- out a hiring with Mr. J, of S. (the responnation : that I do not think. There is no dent parish), and service under it, from evidence as to how the examination was Lady-day, in a specified year, for eleven really taken: and I much doubt whether, months and a fortnight; and the following if such evidence had been tendered, it would ground of appeal was given—" Because the have been admissible to contradict the jurat. pauper acquired a settlement in the said parish It is therefore at least open to doubt whether of S, by hiring and service with one Mr. J, the Sessions were not right. However, we from Lady-day to the following Lady-day, may, I think, ground our decision upon the and service under the same in that parish reason, that it was evidently the under- accordingly:"—Held, that no evidence could standing of the parties that the proceeding be received under this ground, inasmuch as was rightly had in fact, though wrongly it was in itself defective, from the absence of described in form. That the ground of any statement of time and residence, and appeal given by the appellants seems to could not be coupled with the allegations in admit; it seems to state the objection simply the examination, there being no words of reas on the ground of form, allowing that, in ference to connect them. reality, the examination was taken before the two. Then, I think, the language of On an appeal to the Quarter Sessions for the jurat being ambiguous, the presumption the county of Devon, against an order for of omnia ritè acta may prevail.
the removal of William Williams, his wife COLERIDGE, J.-I agree in much regret- and children, from the parish of Stowford to ting that a little more care was not taken, the parish of Broadwoodwidger, in the same and am not surprised at the decision of the county, the Sessions confirmed the order, Sessions. I think that without the experi- subject to the opinion of this Court on a ence which lawyers attain in the rules of
CASE. technical presumptions, any one would naturally come to the same conclusion, and The case set out the examination of the would understand that the whole jurat had pauper, which stated facts establishing a reference to one individual only. But we settlement in Broadwoodwidger, and then must look at the document as lawyers, and proceeded as follows :“About ten years give it the benefit of fair presumption. ago, I went to Mr. Rundell, at Stowford, Now the words “I” and “me” may be read and lived from Michaelmas until Lady-day, as referring respectively to each of the and then went to Maristow, and lived there individuals who sign the jurat. This affords eight months, and afterwards went to work a foundation for the presumption omnia ritè until the following Lady-day, and then went acta, so well known in law, and seeming to to Stowford, and lived with Mr. Jackman apply peculiarly to such a case as the pre- there, under a yearly hiring for eleven months sent. Otherwise, there must have been an and a fortnight.” The case then set out assumption of illegal authority, at least by the grounds of appeal, of which the followone of them, and a fraud practised at all ing was the material one :-“Because the events in both signing.
pauper acquired a settlement in the said WIGHTMAN, J.-—The jurat is signed by parish of Stowford, by hiring with one Mr. two, but the first person singular is used in Jackman, from Lady-day to the following it. We cannot say to which of them it Lady-day, and service under the same in applies. It may be presumed, referring it that parish accordingly, subsequently to separately, that it applies to each and both. that acquired by him in our parish.” The Thus a promissory note in the words “I respondents objected, that the appellants promise to pay," signed by two, has been were not at liberty to go into evidence of held to bind both.
any settlement in Stowford, under the above Order of Sessions quashed. ground of appeal. The Court of Quarter Sessions overruled the objection, heard the W. C. Rowe and Merivale, contrà.— The evidence, and quashed the order of removal. real question for the decision of the Court The question stated for the opinion of the is, whether evidence can be admitted under Court was, whether on these grounds of a ground of appeal, admitted to be defective appeal, the appellants were at liberty to in essential particulars, by connecting the prove a settlement gained by William Wil- defective allegations in it with certain other liams in the respondent parish, by hiring allegations in the examination of the pauper, and service.
to which there is no express reference whatKekewich and Greenwood, for the appel- ever. And this is distinctly denied by Patlants.--It is conceded, that the ground of teson, J., in The Queen v. the Inhabitants appeal is not sufficiently set out, to admit of North Bovey, where a similar attempt the appellants to proof, if taken alone. It was made: "If the ground of appeal had is deficient, in wanting both the statement said expressly that the subsequent settleof time and the statement of the pauper's ment had been gained by the hiring and residence--The Queen v. the Justices of the service mentioned in the examination, a West Riding, Drighlington v. Pudsey (1). different question would have arisen. But The question for the Court is, whether these as the notice now is, the hiring relied on by may be supplied by connecting the ground the appellants, may be a different hiring of appeal and examination together; whe- from that in the examination, for the exather the Court below was not right in in- mination is not referred to.” Supposing tending that the hiring and service with one that the ground of appeal in question were Jackman, mentioned in the ground of ap- sufficiently explicit by itself, and that the peal, were meant to be the same with the appellants had tendered under it evidence hiring and service, set out in the examination of a different hiring with another Mr. Jackof the pauper, with a party of the same man, could the respondents have objected ? name; and that the allegation simply amount- Would not the answer have been, that the ed to this, that the service in question was very absence of words of reference shewed for a year, instead of eleven months and a that it was intended to rely on a different fortnight, as stated by the pauper. It is hiring? The suggestion of the Court in true, that the other side may rely on The The Queen v. the Inhabitants of BridgeQueen v. the Inhabitants of North Bovey (2), water, that the Justices would do well to where the ground of appeal being defective constitute themselves Judges of the requisite in particularity, it was attempted to supply particularity in some instances, does not the defect by connecting it with a statement apply to cases where the Sessions find subin the examination. But there is this dif- ject to a case, that is, where they themselves ference in the case cited, neither the state- ask for the opinion of the Court above, on ment in the examination, nor that in the the question which they have had to tryground of appeal, contained the essential The Queen v. the Inhabitants of Old Stratallegation, that the service was for a year. ford (4). If both could be connected, and looked at as one record, they would still fail to satisfy LORD DENMAN, C.J.—The first impression the requirements of the statute. Here, by on reading these documents might probably connecting the two, there is a complete be, that the Jackman mentioned in them statement, perfect in all the necessary ingre- respectively, is one and the same, and that dients, of a settlement. On the whole ques- they are sufficiently connected. But, in fact, tion, the Sessions have decided that the there are no words of reference; a person of particularity was sufficient, and this Court the same name is mentioned in the examinawill be unwilling to disturb their decision- tion and ground of appeal, but there is no The Queen v. the Inhabitants of Bridgewater averment of identity. That is precisely the (3).
same state of things which was presented to (1) 1 Gale & Dav. 706 ; s.c. 11 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) the Court in The Queen v. the Inhabitants of M.C. 80.
North Bovey, and I adhere to the opinion of (2) Ibid. 701; s.c. 11 Law J. Rep. (n.s.) M.C. 71.
Mr. Justice Patteson, as expressed there. It is (3) 10 Ad. & El. 693; s.c. 10 Law J. Rep. (p.s.) (4) 2 Gale & Dav. 82; s.c. 11 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 42,
very true, that in a small parish, and in the The chairman of the Quarter Sessions excase of an uncommon name, there might be pressed his willingness to grant the applicano danger of misleading; but the parish tion, if an authority for his doing so were might be large, and the name familiar; and shewn to him. The appellants' counsel it is impossible to lay down different rules then cited The King v. the Inhabitants of for the two cases. There was, therefore, Kimbolton (1), but the Court, not considernothing which the Sessions could inquire ing that case to be an authority in point, into; and as they have sent up a case for refused to adjourn the appeal; and the our opinion, we are bound to say that they appellants' counsel then admitting that they have done wrong.
could not support their appeal on the grounds WILLIAMS, J.,
COLERIDGE, J., and WiGHT- delivered, the order was confirmed. MAN, J. concurred.
moving for the rule, The King v. the InhaOrder of Sessions quashed.
bitants of Kimbolton and The Queen v. the Justices of Derbyshire (2) were cited.
THE QUEEN 0. THE JUSTICES
Valentine Lee now shewed cause.-In BAIL COURT.
this case, notice of appeal was given on
the 18th of August, and the grounds of 1842. Nov. 23.
appeal were not sent to the respondents
until the 1st of October; the appellants had Mandamus-Judgment of Quarter Ses- therefore ample time for preparing their sions-Grounds of Appeal-Adjournment. grounds of appeal, and if this application
should be granted, then in every case, when Where the appellants, having delivered the appeal is brought on, if the grounds insufficient grounds of appeal, applied to the stated are thought insufficient, the appelCourt of Quarter Sessions to adjourn the lants will apply to adjourn the appeal. appeal, and that Court refused, thinking they The King v. the Inhabitants of Kimbolton is had no such power, and confirmed the order : not in point; the Magistrates there granted -Held, that a mandamus would not lie to a case for the opinion of this Court, and the compel them to enter continuances and hear question arose upon that case; but here the the appeal.
Magistrates have granted no case, but have
confirmed the order, and this Court will not Whateley obtained a rule, on the 8th of grant a mandamus to compel a court of November, calling upon the Justices of the competent jurisdiction to review their decicounty of Stafford to shew cause why a sion—The King v. the Justices of Monmandamus should not issue, commanding mouthshire (3), The King v. the Justices of them to enter continuances and hear an Leicestershire (4). The case of The King appeal against an order of Justices for the v. the Inhabitants of Kimbolton shews, that removal of Hannah Harrison and her four where a sufficient notice of appeal has been children from the parish of Kingsley to the served, but a defective statement of grounds township of Ramson, in the said county of appeal, the Sessions are not bound to The rule was obtained on the affidavit of adjourn the appeal. the attorney for the appellant parish. It [WIGHTMAN, J.-The short point is, stated, that the order for the removal of the whether the Justices were bound to adjourn pauper was served on the 29th of July ;
the appeal.] that notice of appeal was given on the 18th Whateley, in support of the rule.—The of August, and notice of the grounds of chairman of the Quarter Sessions decided appeal on the 1st of October : the sessions the point, on the ground that they were were held on the 19th of October. Previous bound not to adjourn the appeal. Great to the appeal being called on, the appellants ascertained that the grounds of appeal were (1) 6 Ad. & El. 603 ; s.c. 6 Law J. Rep. (N.s.)
M.C. 90. too general, and they therefore instructed
(2) Ibid. 612; s.c. 7 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C.91. counsel to apply for leave to adjourn the
(3) 4 B. & C. 844. appeal on payment of the costs of the day. (4) 1 Mau, & Selw. 442.
New SERIES, XII.-Mag. Cas.
HASELDINE V. GROVE.
inconvenience has arisen from the techni- above act, which limits the time for commenccalities required in drawing up the grounds ing the action to three months after the fact of appeal : this inconvenience may be in committed, and also requires the venue to be some degree remedied, by allowing applica- laid in Middlesex, and that therefore the tions like the present. In The King v. the action was too late. Justices of Leicestershire and The King v. Whether the Magistrate acts bonâ fide, is the Justices of Monmouthshire, the cases had a question for the jury; and if the plaintiff been decided at the Sessions upon the merits: seeks to maintain his action, on the ground, here, the order was confirmed on a mere that the Magistrate acted so illegally as to question of form.
have disentitled himself to any notice of ac
tion, it lies on the plaintiff to cause this quesWightman, J.-I feel here the difficulty tion to be put to the jury. that the Court of Quarter Sessions have Whether the Magistrate might detain the determined the case, and have not reserved party, on his own view, and hold him to bail the point: unless, therefore, they were bound for perjury, no direct charge or information to adjourn the appeal I cannot interfere; having been laid before him-quare. and I do not think that they were bound. Rule discharged, with costs.
Trespass and false imprisonment against a Magistrate.
Plea— Not guilty, by statute. 1842,
At the trial, before Alderson, B., at the Dec. 3. S
Spring Assizes for Kent, 1842, it appeared
that the defendant was one of the Police Justice of the Peace—Perjury-Trespass Magistrates, appointed to the Greenwich - Metropolitan Police Aci—Limitation of district, under the statute 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71. Action-Bona Fides.
On the 26th of July 1841, a comA complaint having been made against a plaint was made to the defendant, respectpawnbroker, before a Police Magistrate, ap- ing some articles pledged with a pawnpointed under the statute 2 f. 3 Vict. c. 72, broker, who was the master of the plaintiff. the pawnbroker called his assistant as a wit- The parties, with the pawnbroker and the ness, and he was sworn and examined before plaintiff, attended before the defendant the the Magistrate, who cautioned him against next day, when two witnesses having been committing perjury. The case was subse- heard for the complainant, the pawnbroker, in quently dismissed from want of jurisdiction in defence, called as a witness the plaintiff, who the Magistrate, but he being dissatisfied with was about eighteen, on which the defendant the evidence of the assistant, ordered him to cautioned him upon the obligation of an be detained, without any complaint being oath, and against committing perjury, and made, and afterwards took bail for his ap- the plaintiff was then examined and deposed pearance, as on a charge of perjury upon a to facts quite contradictory of those sworn subsequent day. Upon that day the parties to by the two witnesses. The defendant attended; and the charge of perjury was gone was about to make an order for the restituinto, and the Magistrate subsequently took tion of the property, but there being no the recognizance of the assistant, for his ap- evidence to shew that a tender had been pearance to answer an indictment for perjury made of the principal and interest, as the at the Central Criminal Court. A bill was act required, the complaint was dismissed. preferred, but ignored. The assistant after- The defendant not being satisfied with the wards brought an action of trespass and false evidence given by the plaintiff, ordered him imprisonment against the Magistrate. The to be detained, and he was kept in another venue was laid in the county where the alleged room in the office till some other business trespass was committed, and the action was was disposed of, and in half an hour was not commenced until more than three months again placed before the defendant; but the after its commission, but within six months :- two witnesses, who had given evidence for Held, that the defendant was entitled to the the complainant, having then left the office, statutory protection of the 53rd section of the the pawnbroker was bound in a recognizance