Where the notice was given too late, but the respondents afterwards gave the appellants a notice to produce some document, and the sessions held this notice to be a waiver of the irregularity, the court held that it was a matter of practice, of which the sessions were competent to judge, and having done so, the court would not interfere (d). Where the notice of appeal required by the statute was duly given of an appeal respited from the preceding sessions, but a rule of the sessions required also that where an appeal was entered and respited, notice thereof should be given to the officers of the removing parish within one month after such entry and respite; and because such notice was not given, the sessions dismissed the appeal: but upon application for a mandamus, the court held that the justices had no authority to require this notice of the entry and respite; the statute required only a notice of appeal, and all the justices could do was to decide whether that notice was given in reasonable time (e). On the other hand, where an appeal was entered and respited, and a copy of the order of respite served on the officers of the removing parish, but no other actual notice of appeal was given: the court of King's Bench held, that this copy of the order of respite was sufficient notice of appeal; the respondents could not possibly understand it in any other light, nor could the appellants have served it for any other purpose (f). Where by the practice of the sessions at Preston in Lincolnshire, ten days' notice of appeal was required, and the same as to respited appeals, unless there was some agreement between the parties to the contrary; the trial of an appeal having been put off on the application of the respondents, on account of the absence of a material witness, they objected at the next sessions to its being tried, because the appellants had not given the ten days' notice: but upon an application for a mandamus, the court held, that as the trial was put off until the next sessions at the request of the respondents, this was in effect an undertaking on their part to try at the next sessions without notice; and they accordingly granted the writ (g). By and to whom given.] It must be given by the "churchwardens or overseers of the poor" of the parish or place, who make the appeal, to the " churchwardens or overseers of the poor "of the parish or place from which the pauper was removed. But if sent without the grounds of appeal, it may be signed and given by an attorney on behalf of the parish officers (d) R. v. Wickenby, 16 Shaw's Justice, 294. (e) R. v. JJ. of Norfolk, 5 B. & Ad. 090. (f) R. v. Lambeth, 3 D. & R. 340. (g) R. v. JJ. of Lindsey, 6 M. & S. 379. of the appellant parish (h). In practice it is given by the churchwardens and overseers, if a parish appeal, or by the overseers only if a township appeal; and it is directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the removing parish, or to the overseers only if it be a township. Where the 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 overseers 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 that ground refused to hear the appeal: the court of King's Bench, however, on 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 (i). 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 township, but as the order was not directed to the officers of the township, he refused to receive him, unless the removing parish would forego some expenses of maintenance which they claimed; this was refused, and the officer of the removing parish took the order and the pauper to the churchwarden of the parish, and delivered him to him, who immediately lodged the pauper in the work house of the township of Bishop Wearmouth; this latter township having appealed, it was contended before the court of King's Bench, that they could not legally do so, as they were not aggrieved by the order, not being mentioned in it but the court held that, as the order was directed to a parish of the same name as the township, the latter might reasonably apprehend that, unless they appealed, they might (on the autho (h) R. v. JJ. of Middlesex, 20 Law J. 42, m. (i) R. v. JJ. of Carmarthenshire, 4 B. & Ad. 563. rity of R. v. Kirkby Stephen) be estopped afterwards from showing that the pauper was not settled in their township; and therefore they were parties aggrieved within the meaning of the statute (k). In the case of Kirkby Stephen above mentioned, it appeared that the parish of Kirkby Stephen contained ten townships, each maintaining its own poor, of which the township of Kirkby Stephen was one; a pauper, together with an order of removal directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, were delivered to an overseer of the township of Kirkby Stephen, and that township did not appeal against the order: the court of King's Bench held, that the order being unappealed against, was conclusive against the township of Kirkby Stephen; the direction to the parish must mean the township, the latter maintaining its own poor, the former not; and if the township wished to take advantage of the misdirection, it should have appealed (7). And in a more recent case, such a misdirection to the officers of a township, within a parish of the same name, instead of to the officers of the parish, was holden not to be even matter of appeal, but the order ought to have been amended at the sessions (m). But where the appellant parish is incorporated under Gilbert's Act (n), the notice must be signed by the guardian, and described as such, but not by the churchwardens and overseers; as soon as a guardian is appointed, in such a case the powers of the parish officers in these matters become vested wholly in him (o). So, where the poor of a parish were under the management of certain governors and directors (which included the churchwardens and overseers), it was holden that such governors and directors were the parties aggrieved by an order of removal, and that a notice of appeal signed by three of that body was good (p). This notice may now be sent "by post or otherwise, in like manner as a copy of an order of removal and statement of grounds of removal may now be sent by law" (q). And when thus sent by post, the notice must be deemed to be given at the time when by the regular course of post it would reach the respondents; and where the last day of giving notice was the 19th September, and the appellants posted it on the 17th, and according to the course of the post it ought to have reached the respondents on the 19th, but it was not in fact delivered to them until the 20th,-it was holden sufficient (r). (k) R. v. Bishop Wearmouth, 5 B. & Ad. 942; and see R. v. JJ. of Westmoreland, 12 Law J. 113, m. (1) R. v. Kirkby Stephen, 2 Bott, 675. (m) R. v. Bingley, 4 B. & Ad. 567, n. See R. v. JJ. of Denbighshire, 1 B. & Ad. 616. (n) 22 G. 3, c. 28. 13 Law J. 39, m. Square, 18 Law J. 160, m. (g) 14 & 15 Vict. c. 105, s. 10. Form of the notice.] The following is the form of the notice of appeal : -- To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of in the county of Take notice, that we, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of - in the county of· - do intend at the next general quarter sessions of the peace to be holden in and for the said county of· to [commence and] prosecute an appeal against an order of A. B., esquire, and the reverend C. D., clerk, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county of· bearing date -, for and concerning the removal of E. F. and Ann his wife, to our said parish of · aforesaid, [which said appeal was duly entered and respited at the last general quarter sessions holden in and for the said county]. the Where, in the duplicate order of removal sent with the notice of chargeability, the name of one of the justices subscribed to it was illegible; the name in fact was "Josiah Wilson," but the appeal was entered as against an order of "John Walter," and the notice of appeal described it in the same way; but upon the hearing of the appeal, upon the original order being produced, the mistake was detected, and the sessions dismissed the appeal, on the ground that there was no such order as was described in the entry: upon application for a mandamus, Coleridge, J., held that if the sessions were of opinion that the appeal was meant to be entered against the real order, they would have jurisdiction to try it; and a mandamus was accordingly granted, requiring the justices to enter continuances and hear the appeal (s). 2. Statement of the Grounds of Appeal. By the Poor Law Amendment Act, 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 81, in every case where notice of appeal against an order of removal shall be given, "the overseers or guardians of the parish appealing against such order, or any three or more of such guardians, shall, with such notice, or fourteen days at least before the first day of the sessions at which such appeal is intended to be tried, send or deliver to the overseers of the respondent parish, a statement in writing, under their hands, of the grounds of such appeal; and it shall not be lawful for the overseers of such appellant parish to be heard in support (8) R. v. JJ. of Middlesex, 15 Law J. 100, m. of such appeal, unless such notice and statement shall have been so given as aforesaid; nor shall the appellant, on the hearing of the appeal, give evidence of any other grounds of appeal than those set forth in such statement. These grounds of appeal may now be sent "by post or otherwise, in like manner as a copy of an order of removal and statement of grounds of removal may now be sent by law (z).” They cannot be served on a Sunday; and when they were sent at such a time that according to the course of the post they were delivered to the respondents on the Sunday; it was holden that the service was bad (a). As to the mode of framing these grounds of appeal, see post, p. 790. In stating a subsequent settlement, the great and essential requisites in the ground of appeal are that it state all the facts necessary to constitute the settlement, and that it state them with sufficient certainty to enable the opposite party to inquire into the statement, and, if necessary, to proceed to trial. And therefore where the grounds of appeal were, that the pauper gained a subsequent settlement in the parish of C., "by hiring and service for a year and upwards;" and afterwards gained another settlement in the township of B., "by hiring and service for a year and upwards, and also by having served several years under a general hiring" in the said township, without giving names or dates: the court held this statement to be defective and bad; it gave no real information to the respondents; for without the time of the service and the name of the master, they would in vain inquire in a large parish as to the hiring and service of the pauper: they said that they would best effect the evident intent of the legislature, by holding, that the statements must not be in general terms, but must condecend to particulars, not indeed to the extent of setting out the evidence by which facts are to be proved, but so as to give the opposite party reasonable means of inquiry (b). So, where the examination stated a hiring and service for a year with A. B., of North Bovey, the appellant parish, and the statement of the grounds of appeal, not denying this, stated that the pauper had acquired a settlement in the parish of Ashton, "by hiring and service with Edmund Stooke, of George Leign, in the said parish, subsequently to that acquired by him in our parish," not stating it to have been for a year: the court held it bad (c). So, where the ground of appeal set up a settlement by renting a tenement, and stated that pauper's (z) 14 & 15 Vict. c. 105, s. 10. (a) Ex p. Ashford, 16 Shaw's Justice, 759. See ante, p. 782. (b) R. v. Derbyshire, 6 Ad. & El. 885. (c) R. v. North Bovey, 11 Law J. 71, m.; 2 Q. B. 500. S. C. nom. R. v. JJ. of Devon, 1 G. & Dav. 703. |