only to his general character; but which was not a matter in dispute:" "and that they, the said arbitrators, after due consideration of the premises so referred to them as aforesaid, did then and there duly make and sign their award in writing." The award was annexed, and was as follows. "We, the major part of the arbitrators duly appointed by the Philanthropic Society established at Leeds in the county of York, do hereby award and order that Philemon Jaques be expelled from the said Society." (Signed by Fieldhouse, Marshall and Darby.) That the Society was established, and all the meetings thereof held, and the expulsion, disputes, matters in difference, arbitration and award severally took place, and were had, heard, transacted and made, within the borough of Leeds, and not elsewhere. That the borough has had, for several years continually now last past, a separate Court of quarter sessions of the peace in and for the borough; and the justices in and for the borough have exclusively exercised the jurisdiction of justices of the peace for the borough. That, at the petty sessions before the three justices, the attorney for the Society objected that the justices had no authority to entertain the application, as the matter had wholly arisen at Leeds and not within the jurisdiction of the justices; nevertheless, the justices proceeded to examine witnesses on the part of Jaques. That, upon cross-examination, it appeared that the arbitrators had made the award; notwithstanding which the justices made the order.

The affidavits in answer stated that the rules of the Society were allowed and confirmed at the quarter sessions for the Riding, and were enrolled and filed at the office of the clerk of the peace for the Riding,

Queen's Bench. 1849.

The QUEEN

V.

GRANT,

1849.

The QUEEN

V.

GRANT.

Volume XIV. situate at Wakefield. That no part of Wakefield, or the parish of Wakefield, is within the borough of Leeds in the West Riding. That, from 14th March 1846 to 24th October 1846, Jaques was by illness rendered incapable of working; that, from 4th November 1845, he had resided at Wakefield, and that he had never resided or carried on business within the borough of Leeds, or elsewhere except at Wakefield. "That, on the 2d of November 1846, the said Society, at a club night thereof, held in the said Riding, charged this deponent" (Jaques) "with having, at Wakefield aforesaid, on the 23d day of October 1846, violated the twelfth rule of the said Society, by reaching, from a window in the house of this deponent, situate at Wakefield aforesaid, a glass containing a spice walking stick of the value of one halfpenny, and receiving one halfpenny for it, the reaching of which said glass, and receiving one halfpenny, the said Society then and there alleged was working, no member being allowed to do any work during the time he was receiving the benefit specified in the said twelfth rule." That Jaques denied that he had done any work; but was expelled. That he attended, with material witnesses (named), on a day and at a place appointed by the Society for hearing before the arbitrators the matters in dispute; but none of the arbitrators attended: and that he again attended, with the same witnesses, on another day and at a place named by the Society; and that the Society there charged him, before the arbitrators, with violating the twelfth rule by the act before mentioned, and did not prefer any other complaint and charge. "That evidence on the part of the said Society was given at the said last mentioned meeting before the arbitrators.

1849.

The QUEEN

V.

GRANT.

That this deponent" (Jaques), " at the said last men- Queen's Bench. tioned meeting, requested the said arbitrators also to hear evidence on behalf of this deponent touching the merits of the said matters in dispute. That, during the said last mentioned meeting, the said witnesses for this deponent were in one of the rooms of the house in which the said last mentioned meeting was held, waiting to give evidence, and ready and willing then and there to give evidence, before the said arbitrators for and on behalf of this deponent touching the merits of the said matters in dispute. That the said arbitrators, and each and every of them, then and there neglected and refused to hear any evidence on the part of this deponent; and the said arbitrators, or any of them, did not hear any evidence on behalf of this deponent; and the said arbitrators did then and there, on the ex parte evidence produced on behalf of the said Society, and without first hearing evidence on both sides touching the said matters in dispute, award that this deponent be expelled from the said Society. That this deponent, at said last mentioned meeting, did not say that the evidence which had been given on the part of the said Society was true, nor anything to that or the like effect; nor that he had several witnesses to speak as to his character and alleged sickness, nor anything to that or the like effect. That the said arbitrators did not then enquire of him, this deponent, whether he had any further evidence to offer touching the matters in dispute before them. That he, this deponent, did not, at the said last mentioned meeting, state that he had not any witnesses except such witnesses as spoke only to his general character, nor any words to that or the like effect. That, at the said last mentioned meeting, this deponent

Volume XIV. 1849.

The QUEEN

V.

GRANT.

66

informed the said arbitrators that he had evidence touching the matters in dispute, and the merits of the said matters in dispute; and that his said witnesses were in one, of the rooms of the said house at which the said last mentioned meeting was held, ready and willing to give their evidence on behalf of this deponent; and that the said arbitrators then refused to hear the said evidence or examine this deponent's witnesses.” "That the said" &c. (the witnesses for Jaques before named) were material and necessary witnesses for and on the behalf of this deponent, touching the said matters in dispute and the merits" &c.; and that the said witnesses, or any of them, were not to speak as to the character and alleged sickness of this deponent. That the said arbitrators, or any of them, could not decide the said matters in dispute justly, candidly and impartially, on the ex parte evidence on the part of the said Society, and without hearing the evidence on behalf of him this deponent touching the merits of the said matters in dispute." "That the said dispute and matters in difference did not arise and take place at and within the borough of Leeds aforesaid, but at Wakefield aforesaid." That it was proved on oath, before the three justices, that the arbitrators" had neglected and refused to hear evidence on behalf of him, the said complainant, and touching the merits of the said matters in dispute; contrary to the 26th rule of the said Society and the said statutes." The witnesses named also deposed that they had attended to give evidence for Jaques," touching the said matters in dispute, and the merits of the said matters in dispute," without hearing which the arbitrators could not decide justly.

In Michaelmas term, 1848 (a),

R. Hall shewed cause. First, it is objected on the other side that, on the facts here shewn, the justices acted without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the arbitrators had already made a sufficient award, and the justices could not give themselves jurisdiction, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 40. s. 7., by finding, contrary to the fact, that the arbitrators had refused and neglected to award. It is true that the authority must, as this order is framed, rest entirely upon the assumption of that fact. But, upon the complaint being made to the justices, they were bound to ascertain the fact; and their finding on that is conclusive. The affidavits raise a question of disputed fact, whether the award was made without the evidence for the complainant being properly heard: this depends upon the question whether the evidence rejected was material to the complaint. The justices were bound to ascertain this: and they appear to have decided it rightly; for (even on the affidavit in support of the rule) it cannot be taken for granted that the character of the applicant and his state of health might not be circumstances important to the determination of the question whether the act which he did was really work within the meaning of the Society's rules. [Wightman J. If justices may always inquire whether the arbitrators decided rightly, they have in effect an appellate jurisdiction.] The case falls within Regina v. Bolton (b); for, upon this complaint, the justices clearly had power

(4) The case was argued on November 15th and 18th, before Lord Denman C. J., Coleridge, Wightman and Erle Js.

Queen's Bench. 1849.

The QUEEN.

V.

GRANT.

(b) 1 Q. B. 66.