1853. The QUEEN V. THWAITES. As regards the misnomer, there is no ground for making the rule absolute; the rule being framed on the ground that the parties were not entitled to vote. Even if the specific objection had been made, that they voted under a description wrongly put down in the burgess roll, that objection could not have invalidated their votes. Suppose a person named James had been put down in the roll as Jem, and had been known as Jem throughout the borough, I do not say that he must have signed the name Jem, but surely he might have done so. Setting aside therefore the objection which arises on the framing of the rule, I think the votes are good. Thwaites, therefore, has a majority; and the rule must be discharged. WIGHTMAN J. I am of the same opinion. If the votes said to be cases of personation are to be retained, Thwaites is elected. Now it is admitted that these votes were given by parties entitled to vote, but who voted under a wrong description. In short, the right man has voted, but has voted under a wrong name. This is a case which to me seems clearly to be cured by sect. 142. The second question in sect. 34 might, I think, be truly answered by Joseph Cowall in the affirmative: he is the person whose name is on the list, though there is an error in entering the name; which constitutes a case under sect. 142. The votes are therefore good votes; and the rule must be discharged. ERLE J. I also think that this rule should be discharged. These six persons, entitled to vote, have, without fraud, voted under a wrong name. Such a mistake, in this respect, would clearly be within the meaning of sect. 142. The six votes are therefore good. CROMPTON J. The rule brings forward two sets of cases; cases of personation, and cases of bribery. In order to make the rule absolute, both sets of cases must be established. The proof of the first set, in my opinion, fails entirely. The objectors are bound by the rule, which alleges only that the parties voting were not entitled to vote, and had fraudulently personated persons entitled to vote. Neither want of title or personation is shewn. The ground insisted upon is altogether different: there is nothing in the affidavits to shew that the voters might not be known by the names under which they were registered and have voted. Even supposing the rule more formally drawn, so as to raise the objection insisted upon, I should be inclined to say that it was the intention of the Act that the burgesses should vote by the names which appear on the burgess list. The second question to be put, under sect. 34, is, whether the voter is the person whose name appears in the list, and whether he is the person whose name is signed. He is not to be asked whether the name which he has signed is his real name. Rule discharged. 1853. The QUEEN V. THWAITES. The QUEEN against The Recorder of SHREWSBURY. Wednesday, MANDAMUS to Charles Harwood Esq., Recorder of the borough of Shrewsbury, in Shropshire. The writ suggested: That, at the General Quarter Sessions April 20th. Under stat. c. 76. 8.79. 4 & 5 W. 4. and 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31. s. 9., the sessions have no juris diction to hear an appeal against an order of removal, where notice of chargeability has not been served on the parish to which the removal is ordered. Before stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 76. there was no right of appeal (except in the case of suspended orders) till the actual removal. 1853. The QUEEN V. Recorder of SHREWSBURY. of the peace holden at the borough of Shrewsbury, on 12th July 1852, an appeal theretofore entered by and on behalf of the Churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Shawbury, in Shropshire, against an order under the hands and seals of two justices in and for the borough of Shrewsbury, bearing date 23d February in the year aforesaid, for the removal of George Harris and Elizabeth his wife, from the parish of St. Chad in the said borough to the said parish of Shawbury, came on to be heard before the Recorder; and that the Recorder, by and before whom such sessions were then holden, was then and there required, on the part and behalf of the churchwardens and overseers of Shawbury, to hear and determine the merits of the said appeal: but that he, not regarding &c., did then and there absolutely neglect and refuse to hear and determine the said appeal, and did then and there dismiss the same without hearing and determining the merits thereof, and had not, at any time since, heard or determined the same, in contempt &c., to the great damage and grievance of the inhabitants of the parish of Shawbury. Whereupon they have humbly besought us &c. The writ then commanded the Recorder, without delay, to enter, or cause to be entered, continuances upon the said appeal from session to session, to the next general quarter sessions of the peace for the borough of Shrewsbury, and, at such next general quarter sessions, to proceed to hear and determine the merits of the said appeal; or to shew cause &c. Teste, 25th November, 16 Victoria. Return. That the order, under the hands and seals of Thomas Girdler Gwyn and Edward Hughes, Esquires, two of Her Majesty's keepers of the peace and justices 1853. The QUEEN V. Recorder of in and for the borough of Shrewsbury, mentioned and referred to in the writ, was made by them, the said T. G. G. and E. H., on 23d February 1852, the day of the date of the same order, as in the writ mentioned. SHREWSBURY. That a copy of the order was served on and delivered to one of the overseers of the parish of Shawbury, in the writ mentioned, on 24th February 1852. That a notice of appeal against the order, containing a statement of the grounds of such appeal, was served on the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Saint Chad, in the writ mentioned, on 16th March 1852, by and on behalf of the churchwardens and overseers of Shawbury, the same being a notice of appeal for the next general quarter sessions of the peace to be holden in and for the borough of Shrewsbury. That the appeal against the order was entered and came on to be heard at the next general quarter sessions of the peace in and for the borough of Shrewsbury holden on 12th July 1852, in the writ mentioned. That no notice in writing of the said George Harris and Elizabeth his wife, the paupers named in the order made for their removal and in the writ mentioned, or of either of them, having become, or at the time of making the said order being, chargeable to or relieved in the parish of Saint Chad was, with the said order, at the time of the sending and service of the same on the said 24th February 1852, sent to or served upon the said churchwardens and overseers of Shawbury: and no such notice of chargeability or relief has at any time been sent to, or served upon, the churchwardens and overseers of Shawbury. That no statement in writing of the grounds of removal, including the particulars of the settlement or settlements relied upon in support of the removal, and of the said 1853. order, accompanied the said order at the time of the The QUEEN sending and service of the same on the said 24th FebRecorder of ruary 1852. And no such statement of the grounds of SHREWSBURY. the removal, and of the particulars of the settlement or V. settlements relied upon &c., has at any time been sent to or served upon the churchwardens and overseers of Shawbury. That, at the time of the said appeal against the order coming on to be heard at the quarter sessions of the peace in and for the borough of Shrewsbury, on 12th July 1852, no removal of the said George Harris and Elizabeth his wife, or of either of them, had been made or attempted to be made to the parish of Shawbury, by or on behalf of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Saint Chad, or by virtue of the order and no such removal has at any time, since the said appeal, been made or attempted to be made. That, according to the rule and practice of the said general quarter sessions of the peace in and for the borough of Shrewsbury, it was requisite to the hearing and determination of the merits of the appeal that the case on behalf of the said churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Saint Chad, being the respondents in the appeal, should first be stated, and evidence thereupon adduced of the ground or grounds of removal relied upon in support of the order: and that, on the hearing of the appeal, the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Saint Chad could not legally have gone into or given evidence of any such ground or grounds of removal. "Wherefore I, the said Recorder of the borough of Shrewsbury, did dismiss the said appeal against the said order so brought on to be heard at the general quarter sessions" &c., as in the writ mentioned; "potice of the said appeal having been served, and the |