justices at quarter sessions, the court held it bad, for they had no original jurisdiction in such a case (ƒ).

Where an order of removal recited, "Whereas complaint has been made to us," without stating that they were justices of the peace, the court held it to be bad, and quashed it (g). So, where it stated them to be "justices of the county," instead of "justices of the peace in and for the county," the court held the omission to be fatal, as there were other justices besides justices of the peace (h). So, where the order stated them to be "justices of the peace in the county," not saying "of or for the county," the court held it bad (i). So, where the order was directed to the overseers of a parish in the county of Middlesex, and to the overseers of a parish in Buckinghamshire, and it described the justices as justices of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, without saying which: the court held it to be bad, for uncertainty (k). But in a similar case, where the order was made by two justices of the county of Rutland, directed to the overseers of the parish of W. in the county of Rutland, and to the overseers of St. M. in the county of Leicester, and "Rutland to wit," was in the margin, and the order recited that it was made upon complaint of the overseers of W. in the said county, and then described the justices as justices of the said county: the court held it to be sufficiently certain; for it must refer to the county in which the parish of W. was situate (that being the last antecedent), and that was described to be the county of Rutland (1). So, where in an order of removal, a county was named in the margin, and the order was directed to the overseers of the poor of the parish of A., and to the overseers of the poor of the parish of B., in the said county, and recited a complaint by the overseers of the poor of the parish of A.," to us whose names are hereunto affixed, being two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county:" it was holden that this order, on the face of it, sufficiently showed a jurisdiction in the justices, as the county in the margin is part of the order, and there was but one county mentioned; and for the same reason, it sufficiently appeared in what county the parish of B. was situate (m). So where the words "Lincoln Holland" were in the margin, and the order described the justices as justices of the peace for the "parts of Holland aforesaid," the court held it to be sufficient, as they would take judicial notice of Holland being one of the three divisions of Lincolnshire (n).

(f) R. v. Bond, 2 Show. 593. (g) Walton v. Chesterfield, 5 Mod. 322.

(h) R. v. Uplin, Set. & Rem. 27. (i) R. v. Owlton, 2 Salk. 474. (k) R. v. Stepney, Burr. 8. C. 23. S. P. R. v. Moor Critchell, 2 East,

66. R. v. Chilverscoton, 8 T. R. 178.

(1) R. v. St. Mary's, Leicester, 1 B. & A. $27.

(m) R. v. Casterton, 14 Law J. 5, m.; 6 Q. B. 507.

(n) R. v. Bourn, Burr. S. C. $9.

So, where the order had "town of Southwold in Suffolk " in the margin, and described the justices as justices of the peace of "the said corporation:" the court held it to be sufficient (o). So, where the order purported to be signed by two justices of the peace "for the borough or town and parish of Andover:" the court held it to be sufficient; for as both borough and town were coupled with parish, it appeared that the justices had jurisdiction, whether they were justices of the borough or town (p). But where in an order of removal, the justices described themselves as "two of her Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the Sodbury division in the said county of Gloucester," and the complaint was stated to be made by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Chipping Sodbury in the same county, and the order concluded, "Given under our hands and seals at Old Sodbury, in the said county of Gloucester:" it was contended that this order was bad, as not showing that the justices who made it had jurisdiction, for as they stated that they were acting for the Sodbury division of the county, it did not appear that the parish of Chipping Sodbury to which the pauper was chargeable, or Old Sodbury where the order was made, was within that division: Williams, J., accordingly granted a certiorari to bring up the order, for the purpose of having it quashed (9). And where an order of removal stated the complaint to be made to "two of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the borough of Kingston-upon-Hull,"-it was holden bad, for it did not appear upon the face of it that the complaint was made to the justices within their jurisdiction; but if it werejustices of the peace "in and for" the borough, it would have been sufficient (r).

Where one of the justices was churchwarden of the removing parish, the court held the order to be bad; for the same party cannot be complainant, and adjudicate upon the complaint (8). Formerly he could not join in making an order of removal, if he were a rated inhabitant of the removing parish (t); but this has been remedied by stat. 16 Geo. 2, c. 18, s. 1, and it is now no objection to an order of removal that the justices who made it are rated inhabitants of either parish.

The court will not grant a mandamus to justices to make an order of removal in any particular case, because the justices are the judges whether a settlement has or has not been proved in the parish to which it is sought to remove the pauper.

(0) R. v. Southwold, Burr. 8. C. 143.

(p) R. v. Andover, Cald. 373. (q) R. v. Blathwayt et al., 15 Law J. 48.

(r) R. v. Stockton-upon-Tees, 14

And

Law J. 128, m. S. P. R. v. Newton
Ferrers, 9 Q. B. 32.

(s) R. v. Great Yarmouth, 6 B. & C. 646.

(t) R. v. Great Chart, 2 Str. 1173; Burr. S. C. 194.

therefore, where two justices received the examinations, but refused to make an order, because they were of opinion that a subsequent settlement had been gained in another parish: Williams, J., refused to grant a mandamus, although it appeared that the justices were clearly mistaken in their opinion as to the subsequent settlement (a).

Upon whose complaint.] By the terms of the statute, the order of removal must be "upon complaint made by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of any parish" (b); or by the overseers of the poor of a township or hamlet (c); and the order, therefore, must state that it is made upon such complaint, in order to show that the justices had jurisdiction. Therefore, where an order omitted to state any complaint to the justices, the court quashed it, saying that the complaint was the very foundation of the justices' jurisdiction (d). So, where an order stated it to have been made on complaint, without saying of whom, the court quashed it (e). So, where an order, directed as usual to the overseers of two parishes, recited, "Whereas complaint has been made by you unto us," &c., without saying which of the parishes made the complaint: the court held it to be bad (ƒ). But where the order recited the complaint as made by the overseers of the parish of St. John, Hackney, and it was objected that the stat. 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, s. 1, requires it to be made by the churchwardens and overseers, the court held that there was nothing in the objection (g). An order made upon the complaint of individual ratepayers, not being overseers, would be bad (h). But, where it was objected that the complaint was not stated to have been upon oath, the court held that the statute did not require it (i).

It is not required by the statute, nor is it necessary, that this complaint should be in writing. But, where the complaint was in writing, and purported to be by one overseer, but the order was drawn up upon the complaint "by the overseers," and it was admitted at the sessions that it was made on behalf of the parish officers, and with their consent: this was holden sufficient (k). Where, however, the order recited a complaint made to the justices "by Thomas George, on behalf of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Bythorn," &c.; and the complaint itself, which was in writing,

(a) R. v. Rogers et al., 12 Law J. 50, m.

(b) Ante, p. 681.

(c) See ante, p. 35.

(d) R. v. Harely, Andr. 361.

(e) Weston Rivers v. St. Peter's,

2 Salk. 492.

(f) Spalding v. St. John the Baptist, Fol. 267.

(g) R. v. Watford, 16 Law J. 1, m.

(h) See R. v. Colbeck et al., 12 Ad. & El. 161.

(i) R. v. Standish-cum-Lang tree, Burr. S. C. 150.

(k) R. v. Bedingham, 13 Law J. 75, m.

was "by Thomas George, one of the overseers of Bythorn, on behalf of the churchwardens and overseers of Bythorn," &c. : the court seemed to think the order bad, as it did not appear on the face of it who Thomas George was, or that he had any authority to make the complaint; but the case was decided upon another point (1).

Where the complaint was that J. S. had intruded himself, &c., and the order directed the removal of J. S. "with three children:" the order was holden to be bad, as being an order to remove more than were complained of (m). But where the order stated the complaint to have been made to one justice, and the order was by two: this was holden sufficient (n).

How directed.] The order must be directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the complaining parish, and also to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish to which the pauper is to be removed. In the case of townships or hamlets maintaining their own poor, it may be directed to the overseers only, even although there be churchwardens or chapelwardens in the township; for the stat. 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, which authorizes the appointment of overseers for townships, did not make such church or chapelwardens overseers ex officio, as the stat. 43 El. c. 2 did with respect to counties (o). If, however, it be directed also to the churchwardens, the word churchwardens may be rejected as surplusage. Or, if a township be called by mistake a parish, the sessions may rectify the error by amendment (p).

:

Where an order directed a pauper to be removed from the parish of St. George to the parish of St. Olave, but was directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the latter parish only the court held it to be bad, and quashed it (g). And where a pauper was removed by order to Ascott, which was a large populous village, part of the parish of Whichford, and not maintaining its own poor separately: the court held this removal to be a nullity, as it was not a parish or other place maintaining its own poor (r); and the same, where the removal is to a parish, not collectively maintaining its poor, but being divided into townships or hamlets, each separately maintaining its own poor. And therefore, where the pauper was removed to the parish of Cartmel, as having gained a settlement by hiring and service at a place named East Plain in that parish; the parish was divided into several townships,

(1) R. v. Molesworth, 15 Law J. 108, m.

(m) R. v. Newington, Set. & Rem. 45.

(n) R. v. Westwood, 1 Str. 73. (0) See R. v. N. R. Yorkshire, 6 Ad. & El. 863.

(p) R. v. Amlwch, 4 B. & C. 757, post, p. 735.

(q) St. George's v. St. Olave's, 2 Salk. 493.

(r) R. v. Swalcliffe, Cald. 248.

each supporting its own poor, and having overseers appointed for it, but there were no overseers appointed for the parish generally; East Plain was a piece of land which had been gained from the sea, and there was no evidence that it belonged to any of the townships, but the commissioners under an inclosure Act had awarded that it should contribute to the poorrates of all the townships in certain proportions; the order of removal was directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, and was delivered with the pauper to the overseers of Holka, one of the townships; and the overseers of all the townships joined in an appeal against it, describing themselves as overseers of the parish; the sessions were of opinion that as East Plain was within the parish, the parish was primarily liable, and it lay upon the appellants to prove that East Plain belonged to some one of the townships; and as that had not been done, they confirmed the order; but the court of King's Bench held that the order of removal could not be supported, and therefore quashed both orders (s).

Where an order of removal was directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Llywell, which parish however was divided into three hamlets, Treganmaur and two others, each supporting its own poor, and each having churchwardens and overseers appointed for it: the pauper and the order were in fact delivered to the overseer of Treganmaur, and that township gave notice of appeal; but when the appeal was called on at sessions, the respondents objected to its being tried, on the ground of the variance between the notice of appeal and the order of removal, the notice being by the officers of Treganmaur, and treating the order as one for the removal of the pauper to that hamlet; and the sessions on this ground refused to hear the appeal: the court, however, upon an application for a mandamus, held that the justices ought to have heard the appeal; for as the respondents had served the order upon the officers of Treganmaur, they had thereby estopped themselves from objecting to the appeal or notice by that hamlet (t). So, where it appeared that the parish of Bishop. Wearmouth is divided into seven townships, one of which is the township of Bishop Wearmouth, another the township of Bishop Wearmouth Panns; each of the townships supports its own poor, and has separate overseers, and no overseers are appointed for the parish; a pauper belonging to the township of Bishop Wearmouth Panns was removed by an order, which, by mistake, was directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish; and when the pauper was presented to the overseer of the township, he admitted that he was settled in the town

(8) R. v. Cartmel, 2 Ad. & E. 562.

(t) R. v. JJ. of Carmarthen

shire, 4 B. & Ad. 563. See R. v. JJ. of Westmoreland, 12 Law J. 113, m.