« PreviousContinue »
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, 9 VICTORIÆ.
REPORTED PRINCIPALLY BY PHILIP BOCKETT BARLOW, Esq., HENRY SELFE SELFE, Esq.,
HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq., BARRISTERS-AT-LAW.
FORMING PART OF
VOL. XV. OF THE NEW SERIES, AND VOL. XXIV. OF THE OLD SERIES,
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, 9 VICTORIÆ.
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF
the county of Middlesex; and, no notice of 1845.
appeal having been given, the paupers were May 28;
removed under the above order on the 27th Nov. 17.
of March following.
The next sessions for the county of SurPoor Law-Appeal—First Practicable Sessions-Entry and Respite-9 Geo. 1.
rey were held on the 9th of April, at which
no appeal was entered. On the 2nd of c. 7. s. 8.
July, the Midsummer Sessions for the same Where a pauper was removed, under an county were holden, and were continued by order of removal in March, within fourteen successive adjournments to the 8th of July days of the Easter Sessions, and the appel and the 24th of July, at which last adjourned lants entered and respited an appeal ex sessions an appeal against the above order parte, without giving notice to the respon- was entered and respited ex parte, on the dents, at the Midsummer Sessions, and application of the appellants, no notice of served notice and grounds of appeal for the entry being given to the respondents. the October Sessions, it was held, that The notice and grounds of appeal were as the Midsummer Sessions had jurisdiction sent on the 28th of September; and at the to receive the appeal, the propriety of their Michaelmas Sessions the appeal came on to adjournment could not be considered. be heard, when the respondents protested
Semble, that for all purposes, the first against the proceedings, on the ground, that practicable sessions are the first sessions the Sessions had no jurisdiction to hear the within the meaning of 9 Geo. i. c. 7: 8. 8; appeal, which, it was contended, had not and that the Justices would be bound to been properly entered and respited ; and respite an appeal entered at such sessions if they declined to give any evidence in supno notice of appeal were given.
port of their case, whereupon the Sessions
overruled the objection and quashed the An order of removal was made and served order of removal. It appeared, from the on the 27th of February 1844, under the affidavits, that by the practice of the Surrey hands and seals of two Justices for the Sessions, it was necessary to give notice of county of Surrey, whereby Charles Abbott appeal six clear days previous to trying and Esther his wife and their child, were and prosecuting an appeal against an order ordered to be removed from the parish of of removal. A rule having been obtained, St. Mary, Rotherhithe, in the said county calling upon the Justices of the Peace for of Surrey, to the parish of St. Pancras, in the county of Surrey to shew cause why a
NEW SERIES, XV.-Mag. Cas.