Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the English Courts of Common Law

siness and adjourned to the 14th. Notice was given of all the adjourned meetings, but not of the purpose of any of them. A meeting was duly held in the mean-time, on the 28th August, not by adjournment, but by special summons, authorized by the local act, for business relative to the workhouse; and the minutes of the vestry meeting at which the rate had been resolved upon were then confirmed, as stated in the avowry. On September 14th, it was resolved that the rate books, which had been made out since the former meeting, should be signed by the vestrymen, and they signed the books, by writing their names at the foot of the declaration required by stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 2. The rate was duly allowed, &c. Some of the vestrymen who attended at the original meeting of the 12th of August and the several adjourned meetings, and who took part in the business transacted at these meetings, and who signed the rate books, were vestrymen de facto only, having been illegally elected. On these facts, stated in a special case, with the question "whether or not they sustained the avowry?"—

Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench, that no rate was in fact made on the 12th August. And that the rate could not be considered as made on the 14th September, or on the two days or either of them by the joint effect of the meetings held on each, there having been no direct adjournment from 12th August to 14th September, and no proper notice having been given that the meeting on the latter day was for the purpose of making a rate. And that, independently of this defect in proof, the signing on September 14th, of a rate only resolved upon by the vestry on August 12th, did not support the allegation that a rate made on the last-mentioned day was signed on September 14th.

Held, by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, on Error, reversing the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench:

That the allegation, in the avowry, that a rate was made at the meeting on the 12th August, was proved by the fact found, that the rate was begun at that meeting and completed on the 14th September, to which day the meeting was duly adjourned by successive adjournments; because all these meetings in law constituted one.

That no notice of the purpose of the adjourned meetings was necessary.

That the allegation, that the rate was signed at "a certain other meeting" on the 14th September, was also proved, because, though that meeting continued to be the same as the meeting of 12th August until the rate was completed, it might be treated as a different meeting at the time of signing the rate after it had been completed.

That the rate made by vestrymen de facts. was valid.

That the rate was well signed, for that the signatures to the declaration at the foot of the rate, under stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 96, s. 2, answered also the purpose of signatures to the rate itself under the local act. Scadding v. Lorant, 687

XVIII. Rate: by whom made.

By vestrymen de facto, 687. Ante, XVII. XIX. Rate: form.

1. Course to be taken by overseers on finding that a rate is bad in point of form, 327, 339. Ante, X. 1.

2. In several volumes, 687, 703. Ante, XVII. XX. Rate: signature.

1. Double purpose served by signature to the declaration, 687. Ante, XVII.

2. By what vestrymen, 687. Ante, XVII. XXI. Rate: purpose.

Exceptions to the rule as to past expenses, 524. Ante, XII. 1.

XXII. Rateable property: exemptions by statute. 1. When kept alive notwithstanding repeal.

By an act, 22 G. 3, c. 56, trustees for the parish of St. Luke were empowered to purchase land in the parish of St. Leonard, Shoreditch, for the purpose of building a workhouse thereon for their own parish; and (sect. 11) the land and any workhouse to be built thereon, were not to be rated more highly to the poor, while used and occupied for the above purpose, than the lands and hereditaments to be purchased were rated at the time of purchase. Land was taken accordingly, and a workhouse built thereon in 1782, and used from thenceforth for the poor of St. Luke's. Sect. 14 enacted that persons born in or received into the workhouse should not therefore become chargeable to St. Leonard's, but should have the same settlement as if the workhouse had been in St. Luke's.

By stat. 48 G. 3, c. xcvii. s. 1, the former act was repealed: by other clauses, provision was made for appointing guardians of the poor for St. Luke's; and, a later section (74) enacted that all workhouses, lands, &c., which the trustees under the former act were entitled to in trust for the parishioners or for the relief of the poor, should be vested in and possessed by the guardians under this act ae fully, effectually, and beneficially, and in as large and ample manner and form, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as the former trustees were entitled to or possessed of the same, or as the same were vested in such trustees; but subject to be used, possessed. &c., only upon the trust, and for the uses, &c., and in the manner by this act directed.

Stat. 53 G. 3, c. cxii., directed the parish.

ioners of St. Leonard's to meet four times a year, and ascertain the amount of poor rate requisite for the current quarter; and, within a given time after each meeting, to make a poor rate not exceeding the amount previously ascertained, which rate should be laid upon all persons who did and should occupy any land, house, &c., tenement, or hereditament within the parish, and should be laid according to the annual rent or value of such lands, &c.

Held that, notwithstanding the general words of repeal in stat. 48 G. 3, c. xcvii., the 74th section of that act kept alive the exemption from increased rating, given by stat. 22 G. 3, c. 56, s. 11, as well as the provision against alteration of settlement in sect. 14 of the same act.

And that the exemption in sect. 11 was not repealed by the general words of stat. 53 G. 3, c. cxii. Regina v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch,

964

2. When not repealed by general words, 964. Ante, 1.

XXIII. Rateable property: exemption of property occupied solely for public purposes. What purposes of local convenience do not exempt: waterworks.

By certain local acts Commissioners were authorized to purchase lands, and construct reservoirs, and lay down pipes for the purpose of supplying the town and neighbourhood of H. in the township of H. with water. They were empowered to divert the water from springs in a township, L., adjoining H.; and, by way of compensation to certain mill owners in L. who had previously used the said springs, they were required to construct one reservoir in L., and to impound therein sufficient water for the use of such mill owners. Water was to be supplied to the premises of such inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood of H. as might desire it, at certain rents varying with the rack rents of the premises. The Commissioners were authorized to borrow money on the security of their works and water-rents. All the money raised by them was to be applied to the purposes of their acts; and, as soon as all mortgage debts should have been paid off, the water-rents were to be reduced, so that the proceeds should only cover the current expenses of executing the powers of their acts. Under these powers the Commissioners borrowed money, and constructed two reservoirs, one for the supply of water to H., and the other as a compensation reservoir to the mill owners in L., and laid down pipes for conveying water to the inhabitants of H., and received the prescribed water-rents, which had been always applied to the purposes of their The Commissioners were bound to fur

acts.

nish water gratis in case of fire; and for watering the streets, at 1d. per 100 gallons.

Held, that neither of the reservoirs was exempted from poor rate as property occupied solely for public purposes. Regina v. Longwood, Overseers, 116

XXIV. Rateable property: waterworks. Compensation reservoirs considered part of apparatus, 116. Ante, XXIII.

XXV. Parish apprentice.

1. Reference to order for binding. Reference in the allowance, when sufficient.

Where an allowance by justices of the binding of a parish apprentice was written at the foot of the indenture, and was subscribed by the justices before execution of the indenture by the parties to the binding: Held that such allowance formed part of the indenture; and that therefore a reference in such allowance to the order for binding was a reference thereto in the indenture, satisfying the requirements of stat. 56 G. 3, c. 139, s. 1. Regina v. Aldborough,

2. Who are parties to the binding. allowing justices, 190. Ante, 1.

XXVI. Chargeability.

190

The

Of neglected lunatic, 873. Ante, X. 4. XXVII. Removability: five years' residence. 1. Effect of erroneous refusal to make an order, 318. Post, XXVIII.

2. Order of removal need not negative, 642. Ante, V. 1.

XXVIII. Application for order of removal: hearing.

What refusal cannot be reviewed though founded on a mistake in law.

Mandamus commanding justices of the peace to hear and adjudicate on a complaint by overseers that a pauper was chargeable to and ought to be removed from their township.

The return showed that the defendants had received and begun to hear the complaint: and that, in the course of the investigation, if appeared that the pauper was chargeable to the township, had resided continuously in the township for ten years before the application, and, during six of these ten years (before the passing of stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66), had received parochial relief: and the justices thereupon decided that the pauper was irremovable.

Held, on demurrer, that the return was a sufficient answer, as it showed that defendants had not declined to exercise their jurisdiction, but had exercised it, though erroneously Regina v. Blanshard, 318

XXIX. Order of removal: form.

1. What it need not negative, 642. Ante, V. 1

Effect of abortive appeal before removal, 881. AFFIDAVIT. AMENDMENT. APPLICATION. ARPost, XXXV.

XXXII. Statement of grounds of appeal: signature.

1. When the overseers signing are to be intended to be the majority, 190. Ante, XXV. 1.

2. By members of local board, 642. Ante, V. 1.

XXXIII. Appeal against order of removal: proceedings at sessions.

1. Effect of caption as to the description of the parties, 642. Ante, V. 1.

REST. ATTACHMENT. ATTORNEY. BAIL.
COMMITTAL. CONSOLIDATION. COSTS. COUN-
TY COURT. DISTRESS. ERROR. EXAMINA-
TION. EXECUTION. FOREIGN ATTACHMENT.
IMPRISONMENT. INFERIOR COURT. INTER-
ROGATORY. ISSUE. JUDGE. JUDGMENT.
JURY. NISI PRIUS. NOTICE. QUEEN'S
BENCH. REGULE GENERALES. RETURN.
RULE. SUMMONS. TIME. TITLE. TRIAL.
VARIANCE. VERDICT. WITNESS. WRIT OF
TRIAL.

2. Power and propriety of adjournment, 881, CROWN. 885. Post, XXXIV.

XXXIV. Appeal against order of removal: finality of decision.

Order confirmed not on the merits.

On appeal against an order of removal before actual removal, the sessions refused to hear the appellants because they had not sent their grounds of appeal fourteen days before the sessions; and the order was confirmed, with the special entry, "order confirmed, not on the merits, no due notice having been given." Held:

1. That the right to appeal against the actual removal was not lost by lodging the previous appeal against the order.

2. That the appellants were not estopped by the special entry; as, although it showed that the order was confirmed, it also showed

I. That the

PREROGATIVE.

PRESUMPTION.

king is always present in B. R. CROWN, II. III.

364, 380. II. From fact of possession, 945. ADVERSE POSSESSION, I. 1.

III. Of proceedings returned being according to the custom, 802. FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, I. 1.

AGENT.

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.

PRISON.

Transfer of prisoners, 497. ATTACHMENT, I. 1.

PRIVATE ACT.

that the appellants had no right to be heard, Page 808. COPYHOLD, I. and were, in fact, unheard, not from a failure

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION

of proof after the matter of inquiry had been entered on, but on account of a preliminary Page 796. DEFAMATION, I. objection. Regina v. Macclesfield, XXXV. Pauper Lunatic. LUNATIC.