this work, treating of the poor-laws. See also R. v. Stanley, Cald. 172. If the justices appear to have jurisdiction, the court will only look to the order itself; and if that be good upon the face of it, they will not enter into an examination of the facts or reasons upon which the order is founded; R. v. St. James, Westminster, 2 B. & Ad. 241. R. v. JJ. of Cheshire, 8 Ad. & El. 398, 8 Law J. 1, m. R. v. James Bolton, 1 Q. B. 66, 10 Law J. 49, m.; and see R. v. JJ. of Middlesex, 8 Law J. 85, m. R. v. Spackman et al., 11 Law J. 15, m. R. v. JJ. of Buckinghamshire, 12 L. J. 29, m, 3 Q. B. 800. Ex p. Overseers of Tolleston, 3 Q. B. 792; unless in the case of an order of sessions made subject to a special case. And therefore where, upon the hearing of an appeal, the court being equally divided, they adjourned the appeal to the next sessions; but the appellants in the mean time moved for a certiorari to remove the order of adjournment and the order of removal, on the ground that one of the magistrates who voted for the respondents, was a rated inhabitant of the respondent parish, and that the sessions therefore, instead of adjourning the appeal, should have quashed the order of removal: the court held, that as there was nothing on the face of the order of adjournment to impeach it, they had no jurisdiction as a court of error to review it; and they accordingly refused the writ. R. v. JJ. of Monmouthshire, 8 B. & C. 137. Also, where an order of removal, good on the face of it, was alleged to have been made upon an examination that was defective, the court refused to grant a certiorari to remove the order and examinations. R. v. JJ. of Buckinghamshire, 12 Law J. 29, m. R. v. JJ. of W. R. Yorkshire, 12 Law J. 15, m. Where also it appears clearly to the court that substantial justice has been done by the order, the court will seldom grant a certiorari to remove it, to let in a mere formal objection to it, having no reference to the merits of the case. R. v. JJ. of Denbighshire, 1 B. & Ad. 616. And where a party complaining of an order is in custody under it, his proper remedy is by habeas corpus and not certiorari; for upon the former writ, not only will the validity of the writ be determined, but the party will also be discharged out of custody if the order be bad. Per Ld. Kenyon, C. J., in R. v. Bowen, 5 T. R. 153, 158. It may be necessary to mention that where an order of sessions is made, subject to a case, the certiorari (if not taken away by statute) is granted as a matter of course, where it is applied for in proper time, &c.

If the sessions upon appeal quash or confirm an order of justices, and both orders are brought before the court of Queen's Bench by certiorari; then if the order of justices be bad upon the face of it, and the order of sessions confirm it, the court will quash both orders; if the order of sessions quash it, the

court will intend that it was quashed for defect of form, and will confirm the order of sessions: but if the order of justices be good upon the face of it, then if the sessions confirm it, the court of course will confirm the order of sessions; or if the sessions quash it, the court will intend that it was quashed upon the merits, and confirm the order of sessions. South Cadbury v. Braddon, 2 Salk. 607, Set. & Rem. 172. See Arch. Pr. Cr. Off. 179.

When and how removed.] No writ of certiorari shall be granted, to remove any conviction, judgment, order or other proceedings, had or made before any justice or justices of the peace, or the general or quarter sessions, unless such certiorari be moved and applied for within six calendar months next after such conviction, judgment, order or other proceedings shall be so had or made. 13 G. 2, c. 18, s. 5. And see Anon. 13 Law J. 28, m. This Act does not bind the crown; and therefore if the attorney-general apply for the certiorari on the part of the crown, the court will grant it at any time. R. v. James, 1 East, 303, n. Nor, does the Act apply to indictments; but a certiorari to remove an indictment must be sued out and delivered before verdict; ante, p. 251, and R. v. Higgins, 5 Ad. & El. 554; and in misdemeanors it must be delivered before the jury are sworn, 60 G. 3, c. 4, ss. 3, 5, but it may be applied for and sued out even before the finding of the indictment. Id. s. 4. See Arch. Pr. Cr. Off. 184.

Also by stat. 13 G. 2, c. 18, s. 5, "no writ of certiorari shall be granted or issued, to remove any conviction, judgment, order or other proceeding had or made by or before any justice of the peace or general or quarter sessions, unless it be duly proved upon oath, that the party or parties suing for the same hath or have given six days' notice thereof in writing to the justice or justices, or to two of them (if so many there be), by and before whom such conviction, judgment, order or other proceeding shall be so had or made, to the end that such justice or justices, or the parties therein concerned, may show cause, if he or they shall so think fit, against the issuing or granting such certiorari." See R. v. St. Mary Whitechapel, 2 Dowl. N.C. 964. This does not extend to indictments; R. v. Battams, 1 East, 298; nor is the crown bound by it. Supra. See Arch. Sess. Pr. 43. If this notice be signed by the attorney of the party, it will be sufficient. R. v. Abergele, 5 Ad. & El. 797. R. v. JJ. of Lancashire, 9 Law J. 9, gb. 11 Ad. & El. 144. R. v. JJ. of Wilts, 10 Id. 25, m. R. v. Darton, 2 D. & Lo. 498. But it must state the name of the party by whom the writ is intended to be issued. R. v. JJ. of Lancashire, 4 B. & A. 289. And see R. v. JJ. of Cambridgeshire, 3 B. & Ad. 887, 1 Law J. 97, m. R. v. JJ. of Shrewsbury & Salop, 10 Law, J. 8, m. R.

v. Cartworth, 13 Law J. 26. See fully upon this subject, with the necessary forms of the notice and the affidavit of service, Arch. Pr. Cr. Off. 180-183.

Upon a defendant obtaining a certiorari to remove an indictment, he must, before the allowance thereof (if not in custody for want of bail), enter into a recognizance either before one of the judges of the court of Queen's Bench, or a justice of the peace of the county or place in which the offence is charged to have been committed, or in which such person shall reside, in such sum as the court or a judge by indorsement on the writ shall order and direct. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 33, s. 2. And if the indictment be against several, and the certiorari be sued out upon the application of only one, the indictment will thereby be removed as against all, although one alone enter into the recognizance. R. v. Boxall et al., 4 Ad. & El. 513. This recognizance must be conditioned to appear and plead to the said indictment in the court of Queen's Bench at the return of the writ, and at the defendant's own costs and charges to cause and procure the issue joined upon the indictment, or any plea, relating thereto, to be tried at the next assizes after the return of the certiorari, or, in London or Middlesex, in the next term after the granting of the writ or at the sittings after such term, or at any other time the court may appoint for the trial, and to give due notice of trial to the prosecutor or his clerk in court. 5 & 6 W. & M. c. 11, s. 2. See R. v. Hawdon et al., 1 Q. B. 464. If the recognizance be given, it shall be certified to the court of Queen's Bench, together with the certiorari and indictment; if not given, the sessions may proceed to trial on the indictment. Id. And if the defendant be convicted, the prosecutor, if he be the party grieved, or a justice or officer whom it may concern as such to prosecute, shall be entitled to his costs from the defendant, to be recovered by attachment. Id. s. 3. See Arch. Pr. Cr. Off. 161.

As to the recognizances required upon the removal of convictions, orders, &c.: By stat. 5 G. 2, c. 19, after making (in sect. 1) provision for the amendment of such judgments and orders as justices of the peace are by law empowered to give or make, it is enacted by sect. 2, that no certiorari shall be allowed to remove any such judgment or order, unless the party or parties prosecuting such certiorari, before the allowance thereof, shall enter into a recognizance with sufficient sureties, before one or more justice or justices of the peace for the county or place, or before the justices at their general quarter sessions or general sessions, where such judgment or order shall have been given or made, or before any of the judges of the court of King's Bench, in the sum of 50l. with condition to prosecute the same at his or their own costs and charges with effect, without any wilful or affected delay, and to pay the party or parties, in whose favour and for whose benefit

such judgment or order was given or made, within one month after the said judgment or order shall be confirmed, their full costs and charges to be taxed according to the course of the court where such judgments or orders shall be confirmed. The word "judgment" here includes convictions. If no such recognizance be entered into, the justice may proceed and make such further orders as if no certiorari had issued. Id. By sect. 3, this recognizance shall be certified to the court of Queen's Bench, with the certiorari and order, &c. and the party entitled to his costs may have his remedy there for the same by attachment. The party suing out the certiorari must join in the recognizance. R. v. Boughey, 4 T. R. 281. And he and the sureties must enter into one entire recognizance for 50l.; it will not be sufficient that each of the sureties enter into a recognizance in 251. each. R. v. Dunn, 8 T. R. 217. This statute, however, does not apply to writs of certiorari prosecutor. R. v. Spencer, 9 Ad. & El. 485. Cr. Off. 185.

sued out by a See Arch. Pr.

How returned.] If the certiorari be to remove an indictment or other matter from the sessions, in which case it is directed to the justices generally, it is returned by the chairman of the sessions; if it be to remove a conviction or order made by magistrates out of sessions, and of course directed to them individually, the return must be made by them. And in the latter case, if the magistrate have already transmitted the conviction to the sessions, he may state that in his return, and certify a copy of it. R. v. Eaton, 2 T. R. 285. A conviction may be returned in a more formal shape than that in which it was first drawn: R. v. Barker, 1 East, 186: an order cannot. R. v. JJ. of Cheshire, 5 B. & Ad. 439.

The return is thus made: first indorse upon the writ these words: The execution of this writ appears in a schedule to this writ annexed: The answer of R. B. esquire," [and if the writ be to the sessions, add," and the justices assigned to keep the peace in and for the county of -"]. Then write a schedule on parchment, in this form: County of - to wit: I, R. B., esquire, [chairman of the quarter sessions of the peace for the said county of - and] one of the justices of our said sovereign Lady the Queen, assigned to keep the peace in and for the said county, and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses and misdemeanors in the said county, by virtue of this writ to me delivered, do under my seal [for myself and other the justices assigned to keep the peace in and for the said county,] humbly certify unto Her Majesty, in her court of Queen's Bench, the [indictment] of which mention is made in the said writ, together with all things touching in the same. Given at day of in the year of the reign of Queen R. B. [seal.]

the Victoria.

Then make out the record of the indictment, together with the caption, as directed in Arch. Pr. Qu. Sess. 31, or the conviction or order, &c. upon parchment; inclose it in the schedule, and annex them to the writ; then transmit them and the recognizance to the crown-office of the court of Queen's Bench.

Where a certiorari issued, to remove an order of sessions made upon an appeal against an order of removal, and the sessions returned not only their order, but also the order of removal, examination and notice of chargeability: the court held that it was irregular to return more than the order of sessions, and that the return therefore ought to be quashed. R. v. Abergele, 8 Ad. & El. 394. See R. v. Ardsley, 5 Q. B. 163.

CHALLENGE TO FIGHT.

It is a very high offence to challenge another, either by word or letter, to fight a duel,-or to be the messenger of such a challenge, 1 Hawk. c. 63, s. 3,-or even barely to provoke another to send a challenge or to fight, by dispersing letters to that purpose, full of reflections, and insinuating a desire to fight, &c. Id. R. v. Phillips, 6 East, 464. R. v. Rice, 3 East, 581. This offence is punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both.

It is also a misdemeanor at common law, punishable in like manner, to provoke a man to any other breach of the peace, either by letter or otherwise.

Challenging or provoking a person to fight, on account of money won at play, was formerly punishable with imprisonment for two years, and a forfeiture of goods and chattels, by stat. 9 Ann, c. 14, s. 8; but this part of the statute has since been repealed, by stat. 9 G. 4, c. 31, s. 1.

Commitment for provoking to fight, or to send a challenge; —On ———, at —, wickedly, wilfully and maliciously did utter, pronounce, declare and say to and in the presence and hearing of one C. D., certain provoking and scandalous words, with intent to instigate, incite and provoke the said C. D. to [fight a duel with and against him the said A. B., or, to send a challenge to him the said A. B. to fight a duel with and against him the said C. D.] And you the said keeper, &c.

-, at

Commitment for sending a challenge:-On wickedly, wilfully and maliciously did write, send and deliver to one C. D., a certain letter and paper writing containing a challenge to fight a duel with and against him the said A. B. And you the said keeper, &c.