BISSET ON THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP, RAILWAY, AND OTHER JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.

In 8vo., price 18s. boards, THE LAW OF PARTNERSHIP; including the Law relating to-1. Ordinary Partnerships 2. Joint-stock Companies before 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. 3. Joint-stock Companies within 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110. not requiring the Authority of Parliament. 4. Railway and other Joint-stock Companies requiring the Authority of Parliament, and within. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, for some Purposes. 5. Banking Companies. By ANDREW BISSET, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law.

"We should not have believed, had we not witnessed the success of the experiment, that the Law of Partnership could be thoroughly expounded within the compass of 176 pages, which is the extent of the first part of the work, devoted to the law of ordinary partnerships. . . . . The style, to give it the highest praise that a text-writer can desire, reminds us of "The Compendium of the Law of Real Property.'"-Jurist, No. 532. London: Stevens & Norton, and W. Benning & Co., Law Booksellers and Publishers.

A

BISSET ON ESTATES FOR LIFE.

In 8vo., price 13s. boards,

PRACTICAL TREATISE on the LAW of LIFE ESTATES. Estates Tail after Possibility of Issue, Curtesy, Dower, Estates pur auter vie, and their incidents, especially with reference to the subject of Waste and Merger. By ANDREW BISSET, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law.

"Mr. Bisset has earned a sound, if not an extensive, reputation by his very learned work on Estates for Life, published in 1842."-Jurist, No. 532, March 20, 1847.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and 194, Fleet-street.

HINDMARCH ON PATENTS.

This day is published, in 8vo., price 17. Is., boards,

SPENCE ON THe equitable JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CHANCERY.

In royal 8vo., Vol. 1, price 17. Its. 6d. boards, THE EQUITABLE JURISDICTION of the COURT

ishers.

FINLASON'S LEADING CASES ON PLEADING.

Just published, in royal 8vo., price 12s. hoards,

A SELECTION of LEADING CASES on PLEADING,

and PARTIES to ACTIONS; with Practical Notes, elucidating the Principles of Pleading, (as exemplified in Cases of most frequent oc currence in Practice), by a reference to the earliest Authorities; and designed to assist both the Practitioner and Student. By W. FINLA SON, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Special Pleader.

"The Notes themselves are learned, and, we may add, elaborate Treatises upon the matters to which they relate. The frequent reference to the very fountain heads of the Law,-the Year Books

of CHANCERY; comprising its Rise, Progress, and final Establishment; to which is prefixed, with a view to the Elucidation of the main Subject, a Concise Account of the Leading Doctrines of the Common Law, and of the Course of Procedure in the Courts of Com mon Law in regard to Civil Rights, with an attempt to trace them to their sources; and in which the various Alterations made by the Legislature down to the present day are noticed. By GEORGE SPENCE, Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn; and 194, Fleet-street. DANIELL'S CHANCERY PRACTICE.-SECOND EDITION. In 2 Vols. 8vo., price 31. 3s. boards, THE PRACTICE of the HIGH COURT of CHANCERY. BY EDMUND ROBERT DANIELL, F.R. S. Second Edition, with several New Chapters, and considerable Alterations and Additions; adapting the Text to the last General Orders of May, 1845, and the Decisions of the Court up to the time of publication. By T. E HEADLAM, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. "We have no hesitation in declaring that this is the most able work which has ever been written on the Practice of the Court of Chancery. ... And we think that the manner in which the learned Editor has dealt with the original work has, upon the whole, been very judicious." -Jurist, No. 487.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn; and 194, Fleet-street.

.

Magazine, No. 10, N. S., February, 1847.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and 194, Fleet-street.

MITFORD ON PLEADING.-A NEW EDITION.
This day is published, in royal 8vo., price 1. Is. boards,

A TREATISE on PLEADINGS in SUITS in the

COURT of CHANCERY by English Bill. By JOHN MITFORD, Es. (the late LORD REDESDALE). The Fifth Edition, comprising a Large Body of Additional Notes, by JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at Law. Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and 194, Fleet-street. SMITH'S MANUAL OF EQUITY JURISPRudence.

A

In 12mo.. price 8s. boards,

MANUAL of EQUITY JURISPRUDENCE, as administered in England, founded on the Commentaries of Joseph Story, LL.D.. and comprising, in a small compass, a numerous collection of Points constantly occurring in Chancery and Conveyancing, and in the general practice of a Solicitor. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law.

"A manual especially adapted to the exigencies of a solicitor's practice."-Jurist, No. 465.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and 194, Fleet-street.

FEARNE'S CONTINGENT REMAINDERS.

Tenth Edition, in 2 vols. royal 8vo., price 21. 4s. boards,

the County Courts, are informed that Reports of Points of Practice decided in the various Courts, and every kind of useful Information relating to them, are regularly contained in THE LAW TIMES. A New Volume (the 9th) commenced on April 3rd, affording an opportunity for New Subscribers..

Also, at THE LAW TIMES OFFICE all the FORMS and BOOKS prescribed by the Judges, with ten additional Forms required by Practitioners and Clerks, specially drawn by Counsel, and a Cause Book for Attornies, shewing the state of each action. List sent to any applicant to The Law Times Office, 29, Essex-street, Strand.

This day is published, in 1 thick Vol. 8vo., price 11. 58. boards,
THE LAW relating to RAILWAYS and RAILWAY
damus, Injunction, and other Matters decided in the Courts of Law and
COMPANIES; with all the Cases relating to Compensation, Man-
Equity; including the Decisions as to the Liabilities of Promoters and
Provisional Committee-men, and on the Rateability of Railways to the
Poor's Rate. Also the Practice in Parliament, Standing Orders, &c.
The Appendix contains all the Statutes, Forms of Notices, Warrants,
Inquisitions, Awards, &c.; with Precedents of Pleadings, Deeds, &c.
By WILLIAM HODGES, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law,
Recorder of Poole.
S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane.

LIABILITIES OF PROVISIONAL COMMITTEE-MEN.
This day is published, price 18. 6d. stitched,

REMAINDERS and EXECUTORY DEVISES, with Butler's Notes: The Tenth Edition. With an Original View of Executory Interests in Real and Personal Property. By JOSIAH W. SMITH, B.C.L., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law.

Stevens & Norton, and W. Benning & Co., Law Booksellers and Publishers.

SELWYN'S NISI PRIUS.-ELEVENTH EDITION.
In 2 Vols. royal 8vo., price 21. 108. boards,

AN ABRIDGMENT of the LAW of NISI PRIUS.

Eleventh Edition, enlarged and much improved, with the Statutes and Cases brought down to the present time. By WILLIAM SELWYN, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, one of her Majesty's Counsel, late Recorder of Portsmouth.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and 194, Fleet-street.

HILL ON TRUSTEES.

In royal 8vo., price 17. 68. boards,

of EXCHEQUER, in the Cases of REYNELL v. LEWIS and WILD v. HOPKINS, as to the Liability of Provisional Committee-men with reference to the Joint-stock Companies Act, (7 & 8 Vict. cap. 110); with an Appendix, containing the Judgment of the Court. By a BARRISTER of the Middle Temple.

S. Sweet, 1, Chancery-lane.

Of whom may be had,

In 1 vol. 12mo., price 14s. boards,

ALL the EFFECTIVE ORDERS in the HIGH COURT of CHANCERY from 1815 to the present time, with the Decisions thereon, and the Statutes which regulate the Practice of the Court. By TENISON EDWARDS, Esq., Barrister at Law. To which are added PRECEDENTS of BILLS of COSTS ADAPTED to the NEW ORDERS, with Practical Observations.

In 1 vol. 8vo., cloth boards, price 148., LIVES of EMINENT ENGLISH JUDGES of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Edited by W. N. WELSBY, Esq., M.A., Re

TRUSTEES, their Powers, Duties, Privileges, and Liabilities. By JAMES HILL. Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law, and Fellow of New College, Oxford.

Stevens & Norton, Bell-yard, Lincoln's-inn, and 194, Fleet-street.

Keeper Whitelocke, Lord Nottingham, Sir John Holt, Lord Cowper, Lord Harcourt, Lord Macclesfield, Lord King, Lord Talbot, Lord Hardwicke, Sir William Blackstone, Lord Bathurst, Lord Mansfield, Lord Camden, Lord Thurlow, Lord Ashburtom.

A

Just published, Second Edition, in demy 8vo., price 11. 88. in boards, POPULAR and PRACTICAL INTRODUCTION to LAW STUDIES. By SAMUEL WARREN, Esq., F.R.S., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law.

"This Volume now seems altogether as complete an Introduction to Law Studies as can well be imagined."-Spectator.

"

"He has given the most complete Beginning Book' which was ever put into the hands of a young person seeking or entering a Profession.' -Blackwood's Mag., Sept., 1845.

"There can be no question that Mr. Warren's book is, beyond all measure, the best work now extant for the Law Student."-Legal Observer, No. 912.

"It is hardly necessary to say, that no one about to adopt the Bar as a Profession ought to be without The Introduction to Law Studies." "Morning Herald."

"The book, on the whole, is one which we think no young man can rise from the perusal of without feeling his energies braced, his principles confirmed, and his whole mind elevated. This is good service; it is well done, and for it we undertake to say, that Mr. Warren deserves the thanks of the Profession and of the public."-Times, Sept, 1845.

"This is the Introduction to Law Studies. In this department, and it is a most important one, Mr. Warren stands unrivalled, and even without an attempt at rivalry; and few, indeed, are the competitors whom Mr. Warren might have reason to fear."-Jurist, Oct. 11, 1845.

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell yard, Lincoln's Inn.

Just published, in 2 vols. 8vo., price 21 10s. boards,

ORDERS of the HIGH COURT of CHANCERY, from

the Earliest Period to the Present Time. (12 Rich. 2 to 8 Vict.) By GEORGE WILLIAM SANDERS, Esq., Barrister at Law, and Chief Secretary at the Rolls. Also,

In 2 vols. royal 8vo., price 17. 12s. boards, AN ESSAY on USES and TRUSTS, and on the Nature and Operation of Conveyances at Common Law, and of those which derive their effect from the Statute of Uses. By the late FRANCIS WILLIAM SANDERS, Esq. The Fifth Edition, with additional Notes and References, by GEORGE WILLIAM SANDERS, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, and JOHN WARNER, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barristers at Law. "This edition is very ably edited by the son of the very learned author and Mr. Warner, both experienced conveyancers."-Warren's Law Studies, p. 573.

A. Maxwell & Son, 32, Bell-yard, Lincoln's Inn. Of whom may be had, recently published, CRABB'S LAW OF REAL PROPERTY. In 2 vols. royal 8vo., price 21. 188. boards, THE LAW of REAL PROPERTY, practically arranged and digested in all its branches; including the very latest Decisions of the Courts. By GEORGE CRABB, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister at Law. DAVIDSON'S COMMON FORMS AND RECITALS. In 1 vol. royai 8vo., price 10s. 6d. boards, COMMON FORMS in CONVEYANCING, including RECITALS: with Notes. By C. DAVIDSON, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law.

DAVIDSON'S CONCISE PRECEDENTS.-SECOND EDITION. In 12mo., price 9s. boards, CONCISE PRECEDENTS in CONVEYANCING, adapted to the ACT to AMEND the LAW of REAL PROPERTY, 8 & 9 VICT. CAP. 106, with Practical Notes and Observations on the Act and the other recent Acts for altering the Law of Real Property, including the ACT 8 & 9 VICT. CAP. 112, FOR EXTINGUISHING ATTENDANT TERMS. By CHARLES DAVIDSON, of the Middle Temple, Esq., Barrister at Law, and late Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.

MARTIN'S CONVEYANCING, BY DAVIDSON.
In 5 vols. royal 8vo., price 71. boards,

THE PRACTICE of CONVEYANCING, with PRECEDENTS and FORMS of ASSURANCE, and PRACTICAL NOTES, as originated by the late THOMAS MARTIN, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister at Law; and continued and completed by CHARLES DAVIDSON, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law, and Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge.

BROOM'S PARTIES TO ACTIONS.-SECOND EDITION.
Just published, 8vo., price 12s. cloth boards,

Stevens & Norton, Law Booksellers and Publishers, Bell-yard, Lacoln's-inn; and 194, Fleet-street: and J. Hatchard & Son, Piccadilly,

REPORTS.-ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS, IRELAND.

REPORTS of CASES argued and determined in the

Court of Prerogative in Ireland, and in the Consistory Court of
Dublin, during the time of the late Right Hon. John Radcliff, LLD
By C. R. MILWARD, Esq., one of the Proctors of the Court of Prem
gative. One Vol. royal 8vo., 21. 2s. boards.
Dublin: Hodges & Smith, Grafton-street; and to be had of all the
London Law Booksellers.

REPORTS.-COURT OF CHANCERY, IRELAND,
During the Time of Sir Anthony Hart.

REPORTS of CASES argued and determined in the

High Court of Chancery in Ireland, during the time of Sir Anthony Hart, By FRANCIS BEATTY, Esq.. Barrister at Law. Royal 0, price 21. boards. In continuation of Messrs. Ball & Beatty's Reports Dublin: Hodges & Smith, Grafton-street; and to be had of all the London Law Booksellers.

REPORTS.-COURT OF CHANCERY, IRELAND,
During the Time of Lord Chancellor Sugden.

REPORTS of CASES argued and determined in the

High Court of Chancery in Ireland, during the time of Lord Chancellor Sugden. By WILLIAM B. DRURY and ROBERT WARREN, Esqrs. Four Vols. royal 8vo., price 71. boards.

REPORTS of CASES argued and determined in the High Court of Chancery, during the time of Lord Chancellor Sugden. By WILLIAM B. DRURY, Esq., Barrister at Law. Part I, price 94.

REPORTS of CASES argued and determined in the High Court of Chancery, during the time of Lord Chancellor Sugden. By THOMAS JONES and EDMUND DIGGES LATOUCHE, Esqrs., Barristers a Law. Vol. I, price 21.48. Vol. II. Parts I and II, price 11. 18. 6d. Dublin: Hodges & Smith, Grafton-street: and to be had of all the London Law Booksellers.

CHITTY JUN.'S PRECEDENTS IN PLEADING. -- SECOND
EDITION.
Now ready, in One Vol. royal 8vo., price 21. boards,

PRECEDENTS in PLEADING, with copious Notes on
Pleading, Practice, and Evidence. By the late JOSEPH CHIT-
TY, jun., Esq. The Second Edition, containing References to all the
Cases decided upon the New Rules of Pleading, and Short Preliminary
Observations on the more important Subjects. By HENRY PEAR
SON, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister at Law.

The Second Part, with Cancels and Addenda, bringing down the Cases to Easter Term, 1847, may be had separately. Price 17. 18. boards. Wm. Benning & Co., Law Booksellers, 43, Fleet street.

ROBES.-The Very Best Bar Gowns

6

£2 8s. Od. The Rubert Silk Queen's Counsel Gown 7 17 County Court Clerk's Gowns

Every description of Robes on the most moderate terms.
HARRISON,

2 10

State Law and Clerical Robe Maker, 21, Brownlow-street, Bedford-row
EQUITY and LAW LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY,

No. 26, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London.
Capital, One Million.

TRUSTEES.

The Right Hon. Lord Monteagle. The Right Hon. the Lord Chief Baron.

The Rt. Hon. Mr. Justice Coleridge.

Also,

In 3 Vols. royal 8vo., price 51. 58. boards, CRABB'S DIGEST of the STATUTES from Magna Charta to the end Session 1843.

ad of the Publishers respectfully beg leave to call the attention of the

Profession to the fact, that Mr. Crabb's Digest and Index is the only Work that professes to embrace all the Statutes, and that it contains

J. E. Armstrong, Esq.
Mr. Serjeant Clarke.
Thos. Wm. Capron, Esq.
John Ellis Clowes, Esq.
William I. Denne, Esq.
Sir Fortunatus Dwarris.
Francis Ewart, Esq.
N. Hollingsworth, Esq.

Nassau W. Senior, Esq., Master in Chancery.

C. P. Cooper, Esq., Q.C., LL.D.,

F.R.S.

George Capron, Esq. T. G. Kensit, Esq.

ACTUARY AND SECRETARY.-J. J. Sylvester, Esq., M.A., F.R.S This Society grants Assurances to meet every kind of pecuniary risk

contingent upon the duration of human life.

Assurances for the whole Term of Life may be effected upon an in

and exempt from any augmentation for a period of seven years

Applications may be addressed to the Secretary, 26, Lincoln's In

Printed by LUKE JAMES HANSARD, PRINTER, residing at No.7, the Parish of St, Giles-in-the-Fields, in the County aforesaid; and Pub County of Middlesex, at his Printing Office, situate in Parker Street, in West, in the City of London, by HENRY SWEET, LAW BOOKSELLER Iand PUBLISHER, residing at No. 11, John Street, Bedford Row, in the

County of Middlesex. Saturday, April 24, 1847.

No. 538-VOL. XI.

PRICE 18.

A CASE involving a point of some interest, as regards medical jurisprudence, occurred at the last Liverpool Assizes. The facts were as follow:

Elizabeth Johnson was charged with the wilful murder of her husband, by administering arsenic. The deceased, who, at the time of his death, was in the fortysecond year of his age, was described as being a very healthy man, and, as one of the witnesses said, had never been known to suffer a day's illness in his life. After partaking of supper on the evening of Thursday, the 26th November, he was seized with vomiting, and complained of severe thirst, and of pain in the bowels, together with heat in the throat. Having remained in a very weak condition for some days, he died on the 3rd December. On the 4th December, the day after his death, a post mortem examination was made by a surgeon, who at the trial described the viscera as being generally healthy, that the internal surface of the stomach was highly injected; the same appearances were presented throughout the alimentary canal; the lips were excoriated, the gullet and bladder much inflamed, and the lungs of an unusually red or scarlet colour. The surgeon stated that these appearances might arise from any irritant cause, but he had never met with them as the result of natural causes, and that arsenic would, in his opinion, produce such symptoms. The witness also stated that he thought arsenic was in the body. The other medical man, who attended the examination, upon subjecting the intestines to Reinsch's test, obtained a slight film on the copper, but so slight that he could not say what it was.

1 Inn, Barrister at Law.

{'

:{

A. V. KIRWAN, Esq. of Gray's

Queen's Bench Bail Court

Court of Common Pleas,

including

Inn, Barrister at Law.

D. POWER, Esq. of Lincoln's
Inn; and

Appeals ander Registra- (W. PATERSON, Esq. of Gray tion of Voters Act.... Inn, Barristers at Law.

Court of Exchequer...{W. M. BEST, Esq. of Gray's Inn,

........

Barrister at Law.

Ecclesiastical and Admi- ƒ J. P. DEANE, D.C.L. of Doctors ralty Courts 1 Commons. {W. of Inner

Court of Review

Temple, Barrister at Law.

the interim, exhumed in the early part of March, when a large portion of the internal parts of the stomach and the heart was subjected to Marsh's test. The result was a metallic deposit on a piece of cold porcelain, which was found to be discharged by the action of chloride of lime. By another process a yellow precipitate was produced.

From these appearances the medical men concluded, that there was arsenic in the body, but not sufficient to have produced death. According to the evidence of one gentleman, the matter tested did not amount to the one thousandth part of a grain. It was proved in evidence, first, that the prisoner purchased arsenic; secondly, that she had been heard to express threats against her husband; thirdly, that, both by Marsh's and Reinsch's tests, arsenic was found in the body.

Under these circumstances, we should not have been surprised had the jury returned a verdict against the prisoner, although the quantity of arsenic found might not have been sufficient to cause death, inasmuch as the deceased might have got rid of a portion of it by the violent vomiting which preceded his death. Much reliance, however, was placed upon the smallness of the quantity found; and, in addition to this, the learned judge, in summing up, suggested, that, as it was well known that arsenic was contained in many substances, and might be extracted therefrom, there was a possibility that, during the interval between the first and second exhumation of the body, owing to the grave where the body was placed containing a great deal of water, (as appeared in evidence), the poison discovered might be attributed to this cause.

VOL. XI.

P

SPAPER

cipal case, however, to which we are alluding, the suggestion was more successful, and the jury acquitted the prisoner.

ON THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

(Continued from p. 83).

To justices at sessions for the county of Middlesex to award compensation to the sheriff in lieu of gaol fees, under the stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 50, s. 10, the Court holding that they had jurisdiction by the act to do so. (Rex v. The Justices of Middlesex, 3 B. & Ad. 100). To allow a person, on behalf of the rate payers, to inspect and take copies of the last two county rates, and of all orders of sessions made for the expenditure of the same, and other documents relating thereto. (Rex v. The Justices of Leicester, 4 B. & C. 891; S. C., 7 D. & R. 370; but see Rex v. The Justices of Staffordshire, 6 Adol. & Ell. 84, and Rex v. The Justices of Nottingham, 3 Id. 500, semb. contr.). It seems that, previous to granting the writ, an application for inspection must be made to the justices assembled at quarter sessions, or the rate will be refused. To make up a record of the proceedings upon an indictment in order to enable a defendant to plead autrefois convict to another indictment for the same offence. (Rex v. The Justices of Middlesex, 5 B. & Adol. 1113). To allow the costs of maintenance upon an appeal against an order of removal under the 9 Geo. 1, c. 7, s. 9. (Rex v. The Justices of Monmouthshire, 12 Law Journ., N. S., M. C., 126). Where an order of filiation was applied for against the putative father of a bastard child, and the application was resisted in limine, on the ground, that, by a local act of Parliament, certain persons were incorporated for the management of the poor, and that the application should have been made by them, and not by the churchwardens and overseers; the Court of quarter sessions, being of that opinion, made no order of filiation, but refused to order that the costs of the alleged putative father should be paid by the churchwardens and overseers. The Court, however, considered that the churchwardens and overseers were liable to pay these costs, and granted a mandamus to compel the Court of quarter sessions to make an order for their payment. (Reg. v. The Recorder of Exeter, 13 Law Journ., N. S., M. C., 7). Such application and dismissal is a sufficient hearing of the application within 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 73. (Ib.)

If justices at sessions reject an application in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by the Legislature, the Court of Queen's Bench will not interfere; but if they reject it on the ground that they had no power to grant, the Court will interfere so far as to set the jurisdiction of the magistrates in motion. (Per Lord Ellenborough, C. J., 14 East, 397; Reg. v. The Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1 New Sess. Cas. 247). Therefore the Court will compel them by mandamus to receive or hear an appeal or other matter of complaint within their jurisdiction. And where a father and son were removed by two several orders of removal, and the parish officers agreed that the settlement of the son should follow the father, to save the expense of a separate appeal, in consequence of which an appeal was entered against the order removing the father only; and, after the sessions had quashed the order for the removal of the father, the respondent parish refusing to take back the son, the appellants applied, at the following sessions, to enter and try the appeal, which the Court of quarter sessions refused on application; the Court granted a mandamus to the sessions to enter continuances, and determine the appeal against the order removing the son, though, at a subsequent session to that holden after the order of removal was made, saying, that, as the appellants were prepared to enter their appeal at the proper time, and which was

rendered unnecessary by the agreement of the respondents, it was but reasonable that they should grant the application. (Rex v. The Justices of Wiltshire, 1 East, 683; Rex v. The Justices of Leicester, E., 23 Geo. 3, cited in last case; and see Rex v. The Justices of Buckinghamshire, 3 East, 342, and Rex v. The Justices of Devonshire, Cald. 32, accord.: Rex v. The Commissioners of Dean Inclosure, 2 M. & S. 80; but see Rez v. The Justices of Worcestershire, 9 D. & Ry. 210). So, a mandamus lies to the justices to receive and adjourn an appeal made to the next sessions after an order of removal, the sessions having dismissed it, on the ground that no notice had been given to the respondents. (Rex v. The Justices of Staffordshire, 7 East, 549; Rez v. The Justices of Wiltshire, 10 East, 404). And where it appeared that an order of removal was made on Tuesday the 8th July, but not served till the following Saturday, and that the sessions were held on the Tuesday following, and lasted four days, the parish omitting to appeal at the July sessions, the justices refused to receive the appeal at Michaelmas, on the ground that it was not entered at the sessions next after the making and service of the order as required by the statute; the Court granted the mandamus, holding, that, although the statute required the appeal to be made to the next quarter sessions, it must, nevertheless, mean the next practicable sessions, and that the parish officers were entitled to a reasonable time to make inquiries, in order that they might judge as to the expediency of appealing. (Rex v. The Justices of Essex, 1 B. & Ald. 210; S. P., Rex v. The Justices of Flintshire, 7 T. R. 200; Rex v. Hendon, 2 D. & R. 249; Rex v. The Justices of Cornwall, 6 Adol. & Ell. 894; Reg. v. The Justices of Herefordshire, 8 Dowl. P. C. 638; see also, Rez v. The Justices of the North Riding of Yorkshire, 3 T. R. 150; Rex v. The Justices of Gloucestershire, Doug. 182; Rex v. The Justices of the East Riding of York shire, Id. 183; Rex v. The Justices of Surrey, 1 M. & S. 479; Rex v. The Justices of London, 15 East, 632; Rex v. The Justices of Carmarthen, 4 B. & Ald. 291; Rex v. The Justices of Dorsetshire, 15 East, 200; Rez v. The Justices of Sussex, Id. 206; Reg. v. St. Giles's, 11 Mod. 259; Rex v. Coode, 1 Bott, pl. 290; Rex v. Atkins, 4 T. R. 12: Rex v. The Justices of Devonshire, 2 Bott, pl. 961; Cald. 32, S. C.). So where an order of removal was made and executed on the 11th January, and the sessions commenced on the 12th, and lasted fourteen days, when they were adjourned to the 2nd February, which lasted one day, and again adjourned to the 1st March, which lasted two days; it appeared by the practice of the sessions appeals against orders of removal might have been lodged at any time during the sessions, or at the adjournment next after making the order; the appellants gave due notice and entered their appeal at the Easter sessions, but the justices refused to hear it, on the ground that it should have been entered at the preceding sessions, the Court however granted a mandamus commanding them to hear it. Ellenborough, C. J., said, "the statute does not contemplate the continuance of the sessions. It enacts, that the party may appeal to the next quarter sessions," without adding or some adjournment thereof.' takes the holding of the sessions as the point of time to which it refers the appeal; and the sessions are always considered in law as one day, whatever period they may by accidental causes be extended. The appellant parish ought to have a reasonable time allowed for considering whether they will appeal or not. We think the interim between the 11th and 12th January was not a reasonable time for that purpose." (Rex v. The Justices of Surrey, 1 M. & S. 479). So, where the sessions refused to hear an appeal against an order of filiation under 49 Geo. 3, c. 68, s. 5, on the ground that no notice of appeal had been given, and would not admit evidence of a parol notice, alleging that notice ought to

It

have been in writing, the Court upon application granted a mandamus, commanding the justices to enter continuances and hear the appeal, holding, that, as the statute did not require the notice of appeal to be in writing, the parol notice was sufficient. (Rex v. The Justices of Salop, 4 B. & Ald. 626; see also, Rex v. The Justices of Carmarthenshire, Id. 563; see 8 & 9 Vict. c. 10, s. 3; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 4). So, where a rate was published on the 28th October, and the next general quarter sessions were on the 29th of the same month, an appeal against it was entered at the next general quarter sessions following, which were held on the 11th January, the Court refused to hear the appeal, because it had not been entered at a general session which had intervened between these two quarter sessions. On application, however, a mandamus was granted to enter continuances and hear the appeal, holding that the appellant was not bound to enter it at the intervening general sessions, and that it had been lodged in time. (Rex v. The Justices of London, 15 East, 632; Rex v. The Justices of Surrey, ubi sup.). So, where an order was made for the removal of a pauper by two justices of a borough, which was a county of itself, to a parish without the borough, and the magistrates of the borough held only general sessions twice a year, and not quarter sessions, upon appeal to the next sessions, which were the general and not the quarter sessions, the magistrates refused leave to lodge the appeal; the Court, however, on application, granted a mandamus to the magistrates of the borough to hear the appeal, holding that where an appeal is given to the sessions of a town, which is a county of itself, it must be made to the general sessions, and that the magistrates were empowered to determine all matters within the borough, which, according to law, belonged to the office of justices of the peace in their quarter sessions. (Rex v. The Justices of Carmarthen, 4 M. & S. 291). Where an order of removal was served on the 8th April, and the sessions were holden on the 15th, and, by the practice of the sessions, eight clear days' notice of appeal was required; notice of the intention to try the appeal was given for the July sessions, but the Court of quarter sessions refused to hear the appeal, on the ground that it ought to have been entered and respited at the April sessions; but the Court held, that the entry for the mere purpose of adjournment was an useless act, which only occasioned expense, and was, therefore, unnecessary; and that it was sufficient to enter it at the sessions at which the party, by his notice, was bound to try it; they therefore granted a mandamus to enter continuances, and hear the appeal. (Rex v. The Justices of Devon, 8 B. & C. 640, n.; and see Rex v. The Justices of Southampton, Id. 641, n., and Rex v. The Justices of Kent, Id. 639, accord.). So, where an appeal against an order of removal was entered at the January sessions, and respited till the April sessions, and, before the April sessions, fifteen days' notice of trial was given, the Court of quarter sessions required, by a rule, that, whenever an appeal against an order of removal was entered and respited, notice should be given within a month to the officers of the removing parish; no such notice having been given, the justices refused to hear the appeal: however, upon application, the Court of King's Bench granted a mandamus to enter continuances and hear the appeal. Denman, C. J., said, "The Court of quarter sessions are to say whether reasonable notice of appeal has been given; they are to judge what notice is reasonable, but they have no right to require any other notice than the one required by the Legislature. Here they have attempted to require a notice of the entry and respite of the appeal." (Rex v. The Justices of Norfolk, 5 B. & Adol. 990; Reg. v. The Justices of Montgomeryshire, 14 Law Journ., M. C., 142; S. C., 9 Jur. 927). So, where an appeal was entered at the July sessions, and respited

till the following October sessions, the justices refused to hear it, because it appeared, that, by the practice of the sessions, fourteen days' notice of appeal was to be given, exclusive of the day of notice and the day of holding the sessions, one day being reckoned inclusive; the notice was one day too late; the Court of King's Bench, however, upon application, granted a mandamus, and at the same time stated, that, under the circumstances, justice would be most satisfactorily administered by ordering the justices to enter continuances and hear the appeal. (Rex v. The Justices of Lancashire, 7 B. & C. 601; see Rex v. The Justices of Buckinghamshire, 3 East, 342; Rex v. The Justices of Wiltshire, 10 East, 404; but see Ex parte Beck, 3 B. & Adol. 704). Where, after an order of removal made and executed, and notice of appeal given, the removing parish abandoned the order, and obtained a supersedeas under the hands and seals of the removing justices, and served it upon the overseers of the appellant parish. At the next sessions the appeal was called on, and the respondents objected to its being heard, on the ground of the order having been superseded, the Court conceiving, that, as no order was in existence, they had no jurisdiction, and refused to entertain the appeal. Upon application, the Court of Queen's Bench granted a mandamus to enter continuances and hear the appeal, saying, that, as the appeal had been regularly entered in due course, and stood for hearing, the justices had no power to put an end to the order in the manner they had done. (Reg. v. The Justices of Middlesex, 9 Law Journ., M. C., 59; see Rex v. The Justices of Cambridge, 2 Adol. & Ell. 370; Rex v. The Justices of Norfolk, 5 B. & Ald. 484). And so, where the notice of appeal had been served on Sunday, it appearing, that, if the appellants had deferred the service another day, they would have been too late, the Court of King's Bench granted a mandamus to the justices in sessions to receive and hear the appeal. (Rex v. The Justices of Huntingdonshire, Cald. 283; vide stat. 29 Car. 2, c. 7, s. 6, which enacts, that no writ, process, warrant, order, &c. shall be served or executed on the Lord's day, and that the service shall be void; also Reg. v. The Justices of Middlesex, 2 Dow., N. S., 723; Rex v. The Inhabitants of Whitmarsh, 7 B. & C. 601).

(To be continued).