Page images
PDF
EPUB

ARGUED AND DETERMINED

RELATING TO

THE POOR LAWS,

TO

POINTS IN CRIMINAL LAW,

AND OTHER SUBJECTS

CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH

The Duties and Office of Magistrates :

COMMENCING WITH MICHAELMAS TERM, 11 VICTORIÆ.

REPORTED PRINCIPALLY BY

PHILIP BOCKETT BARLOW, Esq., HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq.,
DAVID POWER, Esq. AND EDWARD WISE, Esq.

BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.

PORMING PART OF

VOL. XXVI.
NEW SERIES, VOL. XVII.

OF

THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS.

LONDON:
Printed by James Holmes, 4, Took's Court, Chancery Lane.
PUBLISHED BY EDWARD BRET INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

MDCCCXLVIII.

REPORTS OF CASES

CONNECTED WITH THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES :

COMMENCING IN

MICHAELMAS TERM, 11 VICTORIÆ.

[blocks in formation]

An order of removal from P. to L. was founded on examinations, which stated that the pauper rented a tenement of above 101. for a year, and paid rent during his tenancy. On appeal, the Sessions confirmed this order, subject to a case on the point, whether the examinations were defective for not shewing that therent was paid by the pauper. The case directed that if this Court should consider the objection to the examinations fatal, the order was to be quashed "for de ficiency of the examination" whereon it was founded. The Court of Queen's Bench, after argument, quashed the order of Sessions and order of removal.

On appeal against a subsequent order removing the same pauper from P. to L. upon the same settlement, the appellants objected that the respondents were estopped by the decision on the former case, ( which was set out in the examinations,) and rested their objection upon production and proof of a copy of the record in the Crown Office, shewing that the former order had been quashed. The respondents did not offer any

NEW SERIES, XVII.-Mag. Cas.

evidence to shew that the judgment did not proceed on the point of settlement. The Sessions held that the respondents were not estopped.

The appellants then tendered evidence to shew that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench proceeded on the ground that the former examinations were insufficient in the point of shewing a settlement, which the Sessions held to be inadmissible ( subject to the opinion of this Court); but it being admitted, that if this evidence could be received, the decision did proceed on that ground, they further asked, whether such a decision was conclusive :-Held, first, that the quashing of the prior order "for defici. ency of the examinations" was equivalent to a general quashing, and that the respondents were not estopped by the former judgment, either party being at liberty to shew the grounds on which it proceeded.

Secondly, that evidence of the grounds of the decision of this Court was admissible.

Thirdly, that the decision in the former case was on a point of settlement, and conclusive.

[merged small][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »