1833. The KING against The Inhabitants of STOCKTON. did not appear that the husband was not at Ironacton at that time; and in Rex v. Higher Walton (a), the removal of the wife being to that parish, which was adjudged to be the place of her last legal settlement, and the sessions having confirmed the order of removal, on motion to quash those orders on the ground that it did not appear whether the woman's settlement was in her own right, or in right of the husband, and that nothing ought to be intended, the Court said that she could not be settled but where her husband was, and that they could not intend any thing to vitiate the order. DENMAN C. J. The authorities cited shew that the Court will not presume any fact in order to vitiate an order of removal. Here it is perfectly consistent with that order, that it may not have the effect of separating husband and wife; for the husband and wife may not have been living together at the time when that order was made, or he may be living at Spalding, the parish to which she is ordered to be removed. PARKE J. This case falls within St. Michael Bath v. Nunny (b). We cannot intend that when the order was made, the husband of the pauper was residing at Stockton, or that he was not at Spalding. TAUNTON and PATTESON Js. concurred. Order of sessions quashed. (a) Burr. S. C. 162. (b) 1 Str. 544, Burr. S. C. 815. 1833. The KING against JAMES DAVIS and Another. Saturday, Nov. 9th. con An order of and 11 G. 2. c. 19. justices, under s. 4., adjudging a party to pay double the THE following order of justices having been firmed on appeal to the Gloucester sessions, afterwards removed by certiorari into this Court, a rule nisi had been obtained for quashing it, on the ground, first, that the informer was not named in it; secondly fraudulently and thirdly, that it did not appear that Gyde, therein destinely renamed, was landlord, or James Davis tenant: value of good and clan moved to prevent a distress, must shew on the face of it that the party removing the goods was tenant and that is not suffi ciently shewn on complaint duly made, party was charged with having fraudulently removed his goods from certain pre Whereas James Davis, of the parish of Cheltenham, in the county of Gloucester, fishmonger, on, &c., at, &c., upon a complaint in writing duly made and exhibited before R. B. C. and T. N., two of his Majesty's justices of peace for the said county, residing near by stating that, the place whence the goods and chattels hereinafter mentioned were removed, and not being interested in the premises whence the same were removed, was charged with having fraudulently and clandestinely removed and conveyed away his goods and chattels, not exceeding the value of 50%., from certain premises at Cheltenham, to prevent William Gyde from distraining the said goods and chattels for arrears of rent due to the said W. Gyde for the said premises: and whereas John Davis, of, &c., baker, was, on, &c., at, &c. upon the said complaint duly made, charged before the said R. B. C. and T. N., with having wilfully and knowingly aided and assisted the said James Davis in con so fraudulently and clandestinely removing and conveying away the said goods and chattels, and in cealing the same: and the said R. B. C. and T. N. as such mises to prevent A. B. from distraining them for arrears of rent due to him for the said premises: and that, it appearing that he did so remove, &c., thereof. he is convicted Semble also, that the order should state that the com plainant was bailiff, servant, or agent of such landlord. 1833. The KING against DAVIS. such justices, having summoned the parties concerned, and we, &c. (three justices for the county), having heard the said charge and examined the fact and all proper witnesses upon oath, and it appearing and being fully proved before us that the said James Davis did so fraudulently and clandestinely remove and convey away the said goods and chattels as aforesaid, being of the value, &c.; and that the said John Davis wilfully and knowingly aided and assisted the said James Davis in so removing and conveying away the said goods and chattels as aforesaid, and in concealing the same: we, &c., do therefore, this 22d day of May in the year aforesaid, at, &c., determine and adjudge that the said James Davis and John Davis are guilty of the offences with which they are charged as aforesaid, and that they are hereby convicted thereof; and we do hereby adjudge them to pay the sum of 347., being double the value of the said goods and chattels, to the said W. Gyde forthwith. (a) Sir (a) The 11 G. 2. c. 19. ss. 1. and 2. enacts, that in case any tenant, lessee for life or years, &c. of any lands, &c., upon the demise or holding whereof any rent is or shall be reserved, due or made payable, shall fraudulently or clandestinely carry off from such premises his goods, to prevent the landlord or lessor from distraining the same for arrears of the rent so reserved, &c., it shall be lawful for the landlord to distrain the goods within thirty days, wherever found, unless sold to any person not privy to the fraud. Section 3. enacts, that if any such tenant shall fraudulently remove or convey away his goods as aforesaid, or if any person shall aid or assist any such tenant or lessee in such fraudulent conveying away, &c. such person shall forfeit and pay to the landlord or lessor, from whose estate such goods were carried, double the value of the goods, to be recovered by action of debt. Section 4. provides, that where the gocds so fraudulently carried off shall not exceed the value of 50%. it shall be lawful for the landlord, his bailiff, servant, or agent, to exhibit a complaint in writing against such offender before two or more justices, &c. residing near the place, not being interested in the lands, &c. who may summon the parties con cerned, Sir J. Scarlett and Justice now shewed cause. First, the order pursues the form in Burn's Justice, 24th edit., title, Distress, which Bayley J., in Rex v. Rabbitts (a), stated to be unobjectionable. It states that upon complaint duly made, the parties were charged. The complaint could not be duly made but by the landlord or his agent. As to the second and third objections, the order shews that James Davis removed his goods to prevent Gyde from distraining them for rent due to Gyde for the said premises. [Parke J. It is not stated that Gyde was the landlord of James Davis. In Rex v. Rabbitts, the removal was alleged to be to prevent A. B., being the landlord of Rabbitts, from distraining. Here, for any thing that appears in the order, the complaint may have been by any person unconnected with the landlord.] The Court will not intend any thing against the order, but rather the contrary. Rex v. Bissex (b); and Rex v. Monk, there cited. As the order alleges the removal to have been with intent to prevent Gyde from distraining for arrears of rent of the said premises, the fair inference is that the rent was due from James Davis as tenant to Gyde as landlord; and if that be so, then the order does sufficiently shew that the one was landlord and the other tenant. 1833. The KING against DAVIS. cerned, examine the fact, and all proper witnesses upon oath, and in a summary way determine whether such person or persons be guilty of the offence; and to enquire, in like manner, of the value of the goods and chattels carried off; and upon full proof of the offence, the said justices, by order, may adjudge the offender to pay double the value of the said goods to such landlord, his bailiff, &c. at such time as the said justices shall appoint. (a) 6 D. & R. 341. (b) 1 Chetwynd's Burn, 24th edit. 876. 1 Chitty's Burn, 985. n. (a). Sayer's Rep. 304. VOL. V. [Taunton 1833. The KING against DAVIS. [Taunton J. The justices must state on the face of the order sufficient to shew that they had jurisdiction to make it.] Thesiger, contrà, was stopped by the Court. DENMAN C. J. As to the objection that the order does not state the name of the complainant, it is, perhaps, a sufficient answer that it does allege that, on complaint duly made, James Davis was charged. But it is perfectly consistent with every thing stated in the order, that Gyde was not landlord, and that Davis was not tenant. This objection did not occur in Rex v. Bissex (a). There the order recited a complaint stating that Clavey demised his estate to Thatcher, and that complaint was adjudged to be true. The same distinction applies to Rex v. Rabbitts (b). In this case, if Gyde was not landlord, nor James Davis tenant, the magistrates had no jurisdiction to make the order. PARKE J. It is not shewn here that James Davis was tenant. Now, justices have no summary jurisdiction, except over tenants who fraudulently remove or conceal their goods, and those who assist them in so doing; they have a special authority given to them, on the complaint of the landlord, where the goods removed or concealed do not exceed the value of 50%., in a summary way to determine as to the offence, and to adjudge the offender to pay double the value. If, then, it does (a) 1 Chetwynd's Burn, 24th edit. 876. 1 Chitty's Burn, 985. n. (a). Sayer's Rep. 504. (b) 6 D. & R. 341. not |