« EelmineJätka »
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, 11 VICTORIÆ.
REPORTED PRINCIPALLY BY
PHILIP BOCKETT BARLOW, Esq., HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq.,
FORMING PART OF
NEW SERIES, VOL. XVII.
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, 11 VICTORIÆ.
ANTS OF LEEDS.
1847. THE QUEEN v.
evidence to shew that the judgment did not Nov. 13. S
proceed on the point of settlement. The
Sessions held that the respondents were not Appeal — Prior Order of Removal - estopped. Quashing for Deficiency of Examination- The appellants then tendered evidence to Estoppei - Decision on the Merits-Evi- shew that the decision of the Court of Queen's dence.
Bench proceeded on the ground that the
former examinations were insufficient in the An order of removal from P. to L. was point of shewing, a settlement, which the founded on examinations, which stated that Sessions held to be inadmissible ( subject to the
pauper rented a tenement of above 101. the opinion of this Court); but it being for a year, and paid rent during his tenancy. admitted, that if this evidence could be reOn appeal, the Sessions confirmed this order, ceived, the decision did proceed on that subject to a case on the point, whether the ground, they further asked, whether such a examinations were defective for not shewing decision was conclusive :-Held, first, that that "the" rent was paid by the pauper. the quashing of the prior order “for defici. The case directed that if this Court should ency of the examinations” was equivalent to consider the objection to the examinations a general quashing, and that the respondents fatal, the order was to be quashed "for de- were not estopped by the former judgment, ficiency of the examination" whereon it was either party being at liberty to shew the founded. The Court of Queen's Bench, grounds on which it proceeded. after argument, quashed the order of Ses- Secondly, that evidence of the grounds sions and order of removal.
of the decision of this Court was admisOn appeal against a subsequent order sible. removing the same pauper from P. to L. Thirdly, that the decision in the former upon the same settlement, the appellants ob- case was on a point of settlement, and conjected that the respondents were estopped by clusive. the decision on the former case, (which was set out in the examinations,) and rested On an appeal against an order of two their objection upon production and proof of Justices, dated the 26th of July 1844, for a copy of the record in the Crown Office, the removal of M. Redmayne and his wife shewing that the former order had been from the township of Preston, in the county quashed. The respondents did not offer any of Lancaster, to the township of Leeds, the NEW SERIES, XVII.-Mag. Cas.