« AnteriorContinuar »
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
THE POOR LAWS,
POINTS IN CRIMINAL LAW,
AND OTHER SUBJECTS
CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH
The Duties and Office of Magistrates :
COMMENCING WITH MICHAELMAS TERM, 1 VICTORIA.
REPORTED BY WILLIAM GOLDEN LUMLEY, Esq.
THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS
Printed by James Holmes, 4, Took's Court, Chancery Lane.
REPORTS OF CASES
THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES:
MICHAELMAS TERM, 1 VICTORIA.
- 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.
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
· 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