1853. COLERIDGE J. I am of the same opinion. The first point is really quite elementary; and the principle is Overseers of not confined to orders of removal; it pervades the HESTON V. SAINT BRIDE'S. whole law. The decision of a competent tribunal is Overseers of conclusive as to the same point between the same parties it is not open to either to say that the decision was wrong at the time when it was given. But then Mr. Huddleston distinguishes the case of an order for the maintenance of a lunatic, and says that, by applying the principle here, we give no effect to the words "at any time to inquire," in sect. 58 of stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 126. But, on looking at sect. 57, you see why these words are introduced. The pauper lunatic is "deemed to belong to and continue chargeable to the parish from which” "he shall have been sent, until such parish shall in due course of law, as in the case of any other pauper, have established that such lunatic is settled in some other parish, or that it cannot be ascertained in what parish such lunatic is settled." The Legislature contemplated that no evidence might be attainable at first, and therefore gave an indefinite time for inquiry, during which the truth might be discovered. But then the inquiry is to be conducted on the same principles as the inquiry into the settlement of any other pauper. Regina v. St. Peter's, Droitwich (a), is not inconsistent with this view. We had there quashed an order, not on the ground of settlement, but on the ground that payment had been made to the wrong person: and it is so stated in our judgment. Then a fresh order was obtained; and evidence was given of the grounds of our judgment, shewing it to be not conclusive. This was quite right: any thing that may have been said beyond that was extrajudicial. (a) 9 Q. B. 886. 1853. WIGHTMAN J. Mr. Huddleston's distinction between Overseers of this case and ordinary orders of removal (as to which the HESTON law is settled in Rex v. Wick St. Laurence (a)) fails. Overseers of The words "at any time," in sect. 58, relate merely to SAINT BRIDE'S. the time at which the inquiry may take place. But what is conclusive evidence at one time is so at another. CROMPTON J. concurred. Thursday, Judgment for appellants. (a) 5 B. & Ad. 526. THE HE" Directions to the Masters of the Courts" are dated of this day (a). (a) See post, Appendix, III., p. lxv. Thursday, January 27th. The QUEEN against the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of YORK. The Justice BLISS, in this term, obtained a rule Nisi for a mandamus commanding the Mayor, Aldermen and of Y. appointed R. keeper of the gaol in that Citizens of York to confirm an order, of 25th October borough, at a salary of 1201. 1852, made by the justices of the City in Gaol Sessions a year, and made an order on the treasurer of the borough to pay him his salary. The town council refused to confirm this order, on the ground that they considered the salary excessive. On a rule for a mandamus commanding them to confirm the order: Held: that the duty of the council, under stat. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78. s. 38., was not merely ministerial, to confirm such orders as were made by the justices; but that they had a discretion, to approve or disapprove of the order sent to them: and the rule for a mandamus was discharged. assembled, for the payment to John Raper, the Governor 589 1853. and Keeper of the House of Correction in that City, of The QUEEN 301., for one quarter's salary. From the affidavits it appeared that in April, 1852, there was a vacancy in the office of Governor and Keeper of the House of Correction in the City of York. The town council wished the salary of the new governor to be fixed at 901. The justices at a Gaol Sessions, on 12th April 1852, resolved that the salary should be 1207. per annum and, at a subsequent meeting, they elected John Raper to be the Governor and Keeper of the House of Correction at the salary of 1207. a year, payable quarterly, from the 1st June 1852. Raper accordingly entered into the office on 1st June. No objection was made to him personally, or to his appointment; but the town council still objected to the amount of the salary. The justices made the following order "To the Treasurer of the City of York. We, the undersigned, Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, acting in and for the said City of York at the Michaelmas Gaol Sessions for the said City, held by adjournment this 25th day of October A. D. 1852, do hereby order and direct you, the said Treasurer, to pay to Mr. John Raper, the Governor and Keeper of the House of Correction of the said City, out of the rate applicable thereto, the sum of 30%., being one quarter's salary due to him as such Governor and Keeper on the 1st day of September last. Given under our hands and seals" &c. This order was sent for confirmation to the town council. Several meetings took place between the justices and a committee of the town council: but the justices would not agree to make an order for 221. 10s. (being the quarter's salary at the rate of 90% per annum); nor would the town council confirm V. Mayor of 1853. The QUEEN V. Mayor of the order for 30%. (being the quarter's salary at the rate of 1201. per annum). Both parties requested the Court to decide the question on the motion. Cowling now shewed cause. The question depends upon the construction to be put on stat. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78. s. 38. Before that act, stat. 4 G. 4. c. 64. gave the justices the complete controul of the gaols. Sect. 25 gave them power to appoint all the gaol officers; and sect. 26 authorized them to fix the salaries of the officers, which were to be paid out of the rates lawfully applicable thereto. By sect. 2, that act is made applicable to the towns named in the Schedule (A) to that Act; amongst which towns is York. Then the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 76. s. 116., gave the council of every borough named in that Schedule all the powers given to the justices by stat. 4 G. 4. c. 64. On the passing of that Act, the council had the controul of the gaol, appointing the gaol officers, and fixing their salaries. This was again altered by stat. 7 W. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78. By sect. 37 all the powers for building, enlarging and repairing gaols, which, before stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 76., the justices in sessions had, are (subject to the alterations made by stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 38.) to be exercised at some quarterly meeting of the council. This enactment is subject to two provisos: first, that, before building or enlarging a gaol, the expediency thereof shall be certified under the hand of the Recorder: second, that all rules for the government of prisoners shall be approved by two or more justices acting in and for the Borough. Sect. 38 enacts "that all the powers of regulation which before the passing of the said Act for regulating Corporations were 1853. V. Mayor of possessed by the justices having the government or ordering of any such gaol or house of correction, and all The QUEEN things by any Act of Parliament provided to be done at any general or quarter sessions of the peace, in relation to the regulating of any such gaol or house of correction, shall, subject to any such alteration as aforesaid, be exercised or done by the justices of the city or borough to which such a gaol or house of correction shall belong, and for that purpose the justices shall hold a quarterly session at the usual times of holding quarterly sessions of the peace; provided that no order made by the justices in pursuance of these powers which shall require the expenditure or payment of any money shall be of force until confirmed by the council of that city or borough." The intention of the Legislature is clear. The council are the representatives of the ratepayers; but they are not the administrators of the law. The justices are those who have the administration of the law; but they are not so intimately connected with those who furnish the funds. Therefore, the Legislature gave to the council the controul of the expenditure of money, and to the justices the controul of the gaol, so far as connected with the administration of the law. But, as in some cases the expenditure of money is connected with the administration of the law, the Legislature, in such cases, required the concurrence of both. The justices are to make orders in pursuance of their powers for regulating the gaol; and the appointment of a gaoler and the fixing of his salary are such orders; Regina v. Lancaster(a): but, by the proviso, no order which shall require the payment of money is to be of force "until confirmed by (a) 10 Q. B. 962. |