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, 9 VICTORIÆ.

REPORTED PRINCIPALLY BY PHILIP BOCKETT BARLOW, Esq., HENRY SELFE SELFE, Esq.,

AND

HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq., BARRISTERS-AT-Law.

FORMING PART OF

VOL. XV. OF THE NEW SERIES, AND VOL. XXIV. of the OLD SERIES,

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Printed by James Holmes, 4, Took's Court, Chancery Lane.
PUBLISHED BY E. B. INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

REPORTS OF CASES

CONNECTED WITH

THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES :

COMMENCING IN

MICHAELMAS TERM, 9 VICTORIÆ.

Bail Court.)

1845. (THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF May 28;

SURREY,
Nov. 17.)

Poor Law- Appeal-First Practicable Sessions-Entry and Respite-9 Geo. 1. c. 7. s. 8.

Where a pauper was removed, under an order of removal in March, within fourteen days of the Easter Sessions, and the appel lants entered and respited an appeal ex parte, without giving notice to the respondents, at the Midsummer Sessions, and served notice and grounds of appeal for the October Sessions, it was held, that as the Midsummer Sessions had jurisdiction to receive the appeal, the propriety of their adjournment could not be considered.

Semble, that for all purposes, the first practicable sessions are the first sessions within the meaning of 9 Geo. 1. c. 7: . 8; and that the Justices would be bound to respite an appeal entered at such sessions if no notice of appeal were given.

the county of Middlesex; and, no notice of appeal having been given, the paupers were removed under the above order on the 27th of March following.

The next sessions for the county of Surrey were held on the 9th of April, at which no appeal was entered. On the 2nd of July, the Midsummer Sessions for the same county were holden, and were continued by successive adjournments to the 8th of July and the 24th of July, at which last adjourned sessions an appeal against the above order was entered and respited ex parte, on the application of the appellants, no notice of the entry being given to the respondents. The notice and grounds of appeal were sent on the 28th of September; and at the Michaelmas Sessions the appeal came on to be heard, when the respondents protested against the proceedings, on the ground, that the Sessions had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which, it was contended, had not been properly entered and respited ; and they declined to give any evidence in support of their case, whereupon the Sessions overruled the objection and quashed the order of removal. It appeared, from the affidavits, that by the practice of the Surrey Sessions, it was necessary to give notice of appeal six clear days previous to trying and prosecuting an appeal against an order of removal. A rule having been obtained, calling upon the Justices of the Peace for the county of Surrey to shew cause why a

An order of removal was made and served on the 27th of February 1844, under the hands and seals of two Justices for the county of Surrey, whereby Charles Abbott and Esther his wife and their child, were ordered to be removed from the parish of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, in the said county of Surrey, to the parish of St. Pancras, in

NEW SERIES, XV.-Mag. Cas.

« PreviousContinue »