depends upon the construction of the seventy-fourth section of the statute. In order to give the magistrates jurisdiction, two things are necessary; first, that the offence shall have been committed on the high seas, and secondly, that the convicting magistrates shall be magistrates of the place on land into which the person who has committed the offence is carried. Now, first, there was abundant evidence for the magistrates to find that the prisoner was on board the vessel on the high seas. Secondly, though it happened that in the course of conveying the vessel from the place where the prisoner was arrested, (and the place where he was arrested is wholly immaterial,) he passed over a portion of land covered with water, which was within another jurisdiction, still it is plain that Harwich was the first place on land into which he was carried, and that the magistrates who convicted him were magistrates having jurisdiction at that place. It follows that they had jurisdiction over the offence, and therefore this rule must be discharged. Rule discharged. 1828. The KING Ο. NUNN. The KING v. The JUSTICES of KENT. and respite an appeal, where AN order of removal from Lenham to Pluckley, in It is unnecesKent, was served on the 8th of April; the sessions were sary to enter held on the 15th of April. By the practice of the Kent sessions, eight clear days' notice of an intention to try an appeal must be given. The appeal was not entered at the Easter sessions, but regular notice was given of an intention to try at the July sessions. At the time of the the order of removal is served too late to try at the next ses sions. Parish officers ought to be allowed a reasonable time after the service of the order of removal, to consider whether they will appeal or not. .1828. The KING บ. The JUSTICES service of the order of removal, the parish officers of Lenham were informed that Pluckley would appeal. They said, that as there would not be eight clear days for a notice, nothing could be done at the ensuing sessions. At the July sessions the Court refused to hear the appeal, on the ground that it ought to have been entered and respited at the preceding sessions. A rule nisi having been obtained for a mandamus to enter continuances and hear the appeal, Bolland now shewed cause, and cited The King v. The Justices of Herefordshire (a). Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-It is quite reasonable that there should be an opportunity of appealing. The parish officers should have time to consider whether they will appeal or not. They may have been misled by the conversation with the parish officers at Lenham, in which the latter observed that they could do nothing the next sessions. It also appears to us to be wholly unnecessary to go through the form and expense of entering and adjourning an appeal which could not, according to the practice of the Court, be then tried. (a) 3 T. R. 504. Rule absolute. The KING v. The Inhabitants of LEW. The office of UPON appeal against an order of two justices, whereby assistant overunder 59 seer, Geo. 3, c. 12, William Purbrick, his wife and children, were removed is a public annual office within 3 and 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6. If a salary be annexed to the office, the appointment requires a stamp, under 55 Geo. 4, c. 184; and service of the office for a year under an unstamped appointment confers no settlement. from the township of Charlbury to the hamlet of Lew, in the county of Oxford, the Court of Quarter Sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case : Purbrick, the pauper, being settled in the hamlet of Lew, was, on the 16th day of October, 1826, duly elected by the inhabitants of the township of Charlbury, in vestry assembled, to be an assistant overseer of the poor of the said township, in pursuance of the statute 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 7. The vestry determined that the pauper should perform the duties and receive the salary mentioned in the warrant of appointment hereinafter set forth. On the 18th of the same month he was appointed such assistant overseer by the following warrant, under the hands and seals of two justices (a):-" The township of Charlbury, in the county of Oxford, to wit. Whereas the inhabitants of the township of Charlbury, in the county of Oxford, in vestry assembled in the said township on the 17th day of October, 1826, did nominate and elect W. Purbrick, of the township aforesaid, to be an assistant overseer of the poor of the said township, and did fix the yearly sum of 10l. as and for the yearly salary of the said W. Purbrick, for the execution of the said office: Now we, two of his Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said township, and in pursuance of the statute in such case made and provided, do hereby appoint the said W. Purbrick to be an assistant overseer of the poor of the said township; and we do hereby authorize and empower him to execute and perform the said duties, and to receive the said salary so as aforesaid fixed by the said inhabitants in their said vestry." This warrant of appointment was not stamped. The pauper duly performed the duties of assistant overseer, by virtue of the aforesaid appointment, for one whole (a) Query, as to the necessity of producing the appointment. 1828. The KING v. LEW. 1828. The KING V. LEW. year from the date thereof, and resided, during that time, in the township of Charlbury. The sessions were of opinion that the warrant of appointment under the hands and seals of two justices did not require any stamp, and they therefore received it in evidence; but they decided that no settlement was gained, subject to the opinion of the Court, first, whether the situation of assistant overseer, described in the warrant of appointment, was an office, the serving of which for a year would confer a settlement; and secondly, if the Court should be of opinion that it was such an office, whether the warrant of appointment, being in writing, required a stamp. Cooper, in support of the order of sessions. In The King v. Marsham (a), Lord Ellenborough says, that the office must be derived from the Crown. Here merely a power is given to the vestry to appoint, but is not compulsory on them. The appointment may be determined at any moment, under the 7th section of 59 Geo. 3, c. 12. In The King v. Marsham, the master of a workhouse, appointed under 9 Geo. 1, c. 7, was considered as not executing a public office or charge within 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6. [Bayley, J. The King v. Ilminster is a case more strongly in point. There the sessions found that the pauper was legally appointed governor of the workhouse in A. at an annual salary, and that the office of governor of the workhouse was a public annual office, and that the pauper served it for a year; and it was held that a settlement was gained in A. (b). Littledale, J. The word office is used two or three times in the act. Bayley, J. Is a hog-ringer an annual office? It has been held to be within the statute (c). Parke, J. There is a (a) 7 East, 167; 3 Smith, 151. (c) Rex v. Whittlesea, 4 T. R. 807. (b) 1 East, 83. case which shews that the statute of William extends to offices subsequently created, as a collector of duties on births and burials. It becomes an office when the vestry have appointed (a).] It is submitted that this was not an annual office. [Littledale, J. Is it contended that an annual salary does not make the office annual?] The term "annual" must be understood to mean "by the year," and not "for a year." It has been held that the curate of a sequestered living gains no settlement. The King v. Over (b). [Bayley, J. There the curate could only be appointed for the time that the living might happen to be under sequestration.] The curate, like the assistant overseer, is appointed with an annual stipend. [Parke, J. This is an annual office by the express words of the statute, unless it be determined.] The question is, whether this was an annual office at the time of the appointment. [Littledale, J. Many yearly hirings depend upon the will of the parties. Bayley, J. A general hiring, subject to being determined by monthly warning, is a yearly hiring.] Another objection is, that this office was not executed by the pauper for himself. No settlement can be gained by being the deputy of an officer, The King v. Allcannings (c). Here the pauper was nothing more nor less than a deputy. It will not be contended that it is competent to an assistant overseer to execute a certificate. The appointment is bad for not stating the duties to be performed by the assistant overseer, Bennett v. Edwards (d). [Bayley, J. There the Court said, that the form of the appointment not being stated, they could not see what the duties of the office were.] The last objection is, that the warrant was not stamped. By 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, schedule, part 2, (a) Rex v. Birham, 2 Bott, P. L. 157. (b) Burr. S. C. 746. (c) Burr. S. C. 634. (d) Ante, vol. i. 184. 1828. The KING v. LEW. |