- In the examination of a witness sent with an order of removal, he stated that he had hired the pauper's husband for a year in 1813, and that he served during that year. The appellants, in their notice of appeal, denied the hiring and service, as alleged in the examination. At the sessions, the witness stated that this occurred in 1810, whereupon, the Sessions quashed the order. The Court refused a mandamus to hear the appeal, because it had already been decided.

Semble-That the decision of the Sessions was right.

By an order of two Justices of the borough of Wenlock, Maria Mason and her four children were removed from the parish of Broseley to the parish of Eaton, in Shropshire, and with the order of removal, was sent a copy of the examination of one Thomas Smith, who had deposed, that in 1813 he occupied a farm in Wolverton, and three days before Church Stretton May Fair, he hired the pauper's late husband

for a year, and that he served a year under that hiring. This order was appealed against, and the appellants, in their notice of appeal, alleged as a ground of appeal, that there was no such hiring and service for a year as in the examination of T. Smith was stated.

At the hearing of the appeal, at the last Sessions for the county of Salop, Thomas Smith stated, that the hiring and service really occurred in 1810, and not in 1813; whereupon, the Sessions held that the variance was fatal, and quashed the order.

Archbold now moved for a rule nisi for a mandamus to the Justices of Salop, commanding them to enter continuances and hear the appeal. He contended, that the Justices were not justified in construing the 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 72. s. 81, with so much strictness. The examination which is required by that, to be sent with the order of removal, is analogous to the bill of particulars in civil actions, which is always held to be sufficient, if it conveys to the defendant, with reasonable accuracy, the true ground of action. Here the appellants could not have been deceived. They were informed of the real settlement relied on by the respondents, namely, the hiring and service in the appellant parish. It will be very

hard to conclude the parish officers by the evidence taken before the Justices.

[PATTESON, J.-The Sessions have heard the appeal, and decided it, having quashed the order.]

They have not decided it on the merits; they decided it in limine upon the variance. In The King v. the Justices of Cumberland (1), this Court granted a mandamus to the Justices who had heard part of a case, to continue and hear the remainder.

[LORD DENMAN, C.J.-There, the Justices thought that they had no jurisdiction to go on with it.]

In The King v. the Justices of Cornwall (2), where this Court awarded a mandamus, the Justices at sessions had decided the appeal in like manner.

LORD DENMAN, C. J.-The Court of Quarter Sessions have, in this case, heard the appeal, and decided it. This mandamus, therefore, cannot be granted. But I think they have decided rightly. There was a variance from the examination. Now if the parties may have been misled by the statement which it contained, discussions must not be raised as to whether, in point of fact, they have been so misled. In regard to the case of The King v. the Justices of Cornwall, when it was argued, it struck me that there was a sufficient statement of the grounds of appeal to satisfy the statute. It has been subsequently under the consideration of the Court in another case (3), and we now think, that to hold that the statute was in such a case complied with, would be to put too loose a construction upon the act. It is better that the parties should understand that they must give precise and accurate information.

PATTESON, J.-This case has been decided by the Sessions, and I by no means think they have decided wrong. I consider that we shall best carry out the object of the new act, by holding the construction of the examinations, statements, and notices required by it, very strict. If the pauper make a false statement before the Justices, he must suffer the inconvenience, if it be

(1) 4 Ad. & El. 695.

(2) 1 Nev. & P. 144; s. c. 5 Law J. Rẹp. (N.s.) K.B. 106.

(3) The King v. the Justices of Derbyshire, 1 Nev. & P.703; s. c. 6 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 140.

any, of not acquiring the settlement: if the parish neglect to make proper inquiries, they must take the consequences. Here, it was the case of a party stating one thing before the Justices, and afterwards making a different statement. The King v. the Justices of Cornwall was peculiar in its circumstances. The question turned upon the construction of the act, which was communicated to the other party, and was really understood.

WILLIAMS, J.-Where the Justices have power to decide any matter, we ought not to decide it unless we are clearly satisfied that they are wrong. Now, our best course is to apply a strict construction to this act, and I cannot say that I should have given a judgment different from that which the Sessions have given.

COLERIDGE, J.-This case is decided by The King v. Holbeach (4), if it was rightly decided, as I think it was. Rule refused (5).

V. THE INHABI

1837. THE QUEEN Nov. 8. S TANTS OF CHURCH KNOWLE. Poor Law-Notice of Appeal-Evidence -Order of Removal quashed.

It was found, in a case stated by the Sessions, that a notice of appeal had been given, signed by four churchwardens and four overseers, described as the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of St. M, and that afterwards a statement of the grounds of appeal was delivered, signed by two church wardens and two overseers of the said parish: -Held, that the appellants were not estopped from shewing that there were not more than four parish officers and that the Court would not presume that they did not establish that fact.

On an appeal, the respondents, finding a supposed defect in the examination of the pauper, without communicating their motives to the Court or to the appellants, quashed

(4) 1 Nev. & P. 137 ; s, c. 6 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 5.

(5) See The King v. the Justices of Berkshire, 6 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C, 156, s. c. Ex parte Pratt, 2 Nev. & P. 102, where the Court refused a mandamus to the Sessions, to hear an appeal against a game conviction, where they had refused to hear evidence for an appellant.

their own order, with the consent of the latter: -Held, that on a subsequent removal to the same parish, this quashed order was conclusive as to the settlement up to that date.

An examination stated that the pauper gained a settlement in the parish of St. M. by a hiring and service, but did not state as a fact that he resided therein:-Held, per Lord Denman, C.J., that this examination was sufficient.

This was an appeal against an order of two Justices, whereby Robert Galley was removed from the parish of Church Knowle, in the county of Dorset, to the parish of St. Martin, in the city of Salisbury, which came on for trial at the Michaelmas Sessions, 1835, when the order was quashed, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following

CASE.

A former order of removal had been made upon the examination of the pauper, Robert Galley, on the 20th of December 1834, touching his hiring and service with one James Furber, in or about the year 1824; but it did not state as a fact, that during such service the pauper resided in the appellant parish. A copy of the order, together with the examination of the pauper, was sent by the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Church Knowle to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of St. Martin. Against this order an appeal was entered by the parish of St. Martin, at the Epiphany Sessions, for the county of Dorset, 1835, and respited to the Easter Sessions following. At the At the Easter Sessions, the parish of Church Knowle having discovered that, in the pauper's examination, no mention was made of his having resided in the parish of St. Martin, moved, on this ground only, but without stating this or any other ground to the Court or the appellant parish, to quash their own order, which was done generally, and with the consent of the appellant parish. The pauper having again become chargeable to the parish of Church Knowle, another order of removal to the parish of St. Martin was made, upon another examination of the pauper, dated the 27th of June 1835, touching the same hiring and service with Furber, and also upon an examination of the said Furber,

The

touching the same hiring and service; and copies thereof were sent to the churchwardens and overseers of St. Martin. On the 17th of August, the appellant parish sent to the overseers and churchwardens of the parish of Church Knowle notice of appeal, signed by four churchwardens and four overseers, therein described as the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of St. Martin, in the city of New Sarum, and, on the 5th of October, a statement of the grounds of appeal, signed by two churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of St. Martin, in the eity of Salisbury; and the appeal was entered at the Michaelmas Sessions. grounds of appeal against the second order were the same in the second statement as those in the first statement, with the addition of a distinct ground of appeal, as follows: "And because a former order of the same Justices, for removing the said pauper from Church Knowle to St. Martin aforesaid, had been quashed by the Court of Quarter Sessions, for the said county of Dorset, at the April sessions, in the present year, and which said order of the said Court related directly to the point then and now in question between the parties to the present appeal, and is therefore binding and conclusive between them, so far as respects the place of the last legal settlement of the said Robert Galley." At the hearing of the appeal, the Court overruled an objection made by the counsel for the respondents, that the appellants were bound by the description contained in the notice of appeal of the four churchwardens and four overseers, who signed the same; and that they were thereby precluded from putting in the statement of the grounds of appeal, signed by two churchwardens and two overseers. The same Court overruled an objection, made by the counsel for the appellants, to the reception of parol evidence, to explain the grounds on which the respondents had moved to have the first order quashed; and, after hearing the same, thought the quashing of the said order conclusive, as between the same parties, and accordingly quashed the last order. If the Court of King's Bench should think that the statement of the grounds of appeal against the last order was improperly admitted, then the order of Sessions was to be