MATTERS.

AFFIDAVIT.

Sufficiency of Justices not stated to be
of the Quorum-See EVIDENCE, (2).

APPEAL

(1). Lunatic-Parties to Appeal-
Costs.

An order of two justices adjudicat-
ing the settlement of a lunatic pauper
to be in the parish of S., directed the
overseers of that parish to pay to the
treasurer of the union of M. the ex-
penses which the parish of C., form-
ing part of the union of M., had in-
curred in maintaining the pauper. S.
appealed; and the sessions quashed
the order, and directed the overseers
of C. to pay to the overseers of S. the
sum of 621. for and towards the costs
and charges which the overseers of S.
had been put to, in and about the said
appeal.

On objection that the order for costs
could not be made on C., because it
did not appear to be a party to the
appeal:-Held, that the order was
good, as it was sufficiently clear that
C. was substantially the respondent,
and therefore liable to an order for
costs. Regina v. Chatham, 235
(2). Entry and respite of-See PRAC-
TICE, (1).

(3). Power to respite-See SES-
SIONS, (2).

(4). Adjournment of Judgment in-
See SESSIONS, (3).
(5). To Special Sessions-See No-
TICE, (1).

(6). Notice of, how reckoned-High-
ways-See SESSIONS, (4).
(7). Right of-See SESSIONS, (5).
(8). Sickness or Accident ground of
Appeal-See ORDER of REMOVAL, (2).
(9). Notice of cannot be served on Sun-
day-See BASTARD (1).

(10). When irremovabilty not ground
of Appeal-See RESIDENCE, (2).
(11). By Overseers and Guardians
against Lunatic Order-See LUNA-
TIC, (3).

(12). Exemption from Rate should be
claimed by Appeal-See HIGHWAYS,
(3).

Appeal.

On an appeal under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 10, s. 6, against an order for the maintenance of a bastard child, the mother is a competent witness for either party, and may be called by the appellant to prove notice of appeal under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 4.

Notice of appeal under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 4, (Bastardy Act), is in the nature of process, and cannot be legally served on a Sunday. Therefore, where an order in bastardy was made at five o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, and a written notice of appeal was served on the mother at nine o'clock on the Monday following -Held, that the notice was in time, as it was given within twenty-four legal hours after the order appealed against had been made. Regina v. Justices of Middlesex, 152

(2). Form of Order.

An order in bastardy on a printed form following the form of the schedule annexed to the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 10, stated that the putative father appeared in pursuance of the summons, but did not state that the evidence on which the order was made was given "in the presence and hearing" of the defendant: those words being struck out of the form without any reason assigned-Held, that the order was invalid.

If the person, against whom proceedings in bastardy are taken, appears, the witnesses against him ought to be examined in his presence, and a statement of that fact ought to appear in the order, or special reasons be sug

(4). Petty Sessional Division-Jurisdiction of Justices—Sessions.

Where the caption of an order in bastardy stated that it was made at a petty session of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the county of &c., holden in and for the petty sessional division of H., in the said county, at H. aforesaid, and it appeared that there was no petty sessional division of H., but that there was a petty sessional division of L. B., which included H. and its neighbourhood, and the justices who made the order were resident in H., and that they usually acted at H., which was one of the places within the petty sessional division of L. B., for divers townships in the neighbourhood, including the place where the woman resided and the town of H., and the court of quarter sessions decided, that by the words "a petty session holden in and for the petty sessional division of H.," they understood the petty session in and for the petty sessional division of L. B., holden at H., and confirmed the order:—

Held, 1, that the description of the petty sessional division in the caption was incorrect, and that the order was bad.

Held, 2, that no justices could have jurisdiction originally but those who acted for the petty sessional division in which the woman who applies for the summons resides.

(5). Second Application by WomanSessions-Evidence.

Where a woman, on the 19th June, 1847, applied to a petty sessions at W., in the county of O., while resident therein, for an order on the putative father of a child, which was born on the 22nd March, 1847, and the application was dismissed for a defect in the evidence; and, on the 19th February, 1848, having removed to the county of B., made another application against the same person to a petty sessions there, and the justices made an order upon the putative father, who appealed to the quarter sessions, by whom the order was confirmed without hearing the evidence of the wo

man:

Held, that, though a dismissal of the first application upon the merits would have been an answer to the second, provided it was made out by evidence, yet that the second petty sessions, and the court of quarter sessions, having a general jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and being bound to hear and decide upon the evidence, their decision was final, and would not be reviewed by this Court.

Held, also, that, under 8 Vict. c. 10, the woman need not be examined on the trial of an appeal against an order in bastardy; but that, if she be tendered as evidence, she must be corroborated in some material particular by other testimony. Regina v. Justices of Buckinghamshire, 500

(6). Supersedeas-Indictment for Disobedience of Order.

Under the stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, an order in bastardy, invalid on the face of it, was made and afterwards superseded by the same magistrates,

(8). Power of Justices to entertain Second Application for Order in Bastardy.

Where a woman made an application for an order in bastardy, under stat. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, to justices at petty sessions, and they, after having heard the evidence on her behalf, dismissed the complaint, on the ground that her evidence had not been corroborated in any material particular:

Held, that she was not barred from making a second application within the time limited by the statute. Jones v. Machen, 629

(9). Notice of Recognisance need not state Condition of Recognisance.

The notice of recognisance under stat. 8 Vict. c. 10, s. 3, (Bastardy Act), need not state the conditions of the recognisance.

If the proper recognisance is not entered into, the sessions have no power to confirm the order. Regina v. Holborow, 723

BRIDGE.

(1). Presentment of County BridgeSee JURISDICTION of JUSTICES, (4). (2). When not exempt from Highway Rate-See HIGHWAYS (2).

730

CAPTION OF DEPOSITION. Indictment for False Pretences-Sufficiency of Caption of Deposition. Where, upon the trial of a prisoner for obtaining a promissory note by false pretences, it appeared that the prosecutrix was absent through illness, and her deposition, proved to have been regularly taken before a magistrate, was offered in evidence and received, and the caption of the deposition stated that it had been taken in the presence of the prisoner, "who is now charged before me for obtaining money and other valuable securities for money from the prosecutrix:"-Held, that the caption sufficiently described the charge against the prisoner, and that the deposition was properly received in evidence. Regina v. Langridge,

645

CAPTION OF EXAMINATIONS.

(1). Not nesessary for each Examina

tion.

It is not necessary that each examination on which an order of removal is founded, should contain a separate heading. It is sufficient if the heading of the first contain the names of all the witnesses, and the statement of each witness refers to such heading. Regina v. St. Michael's, Coventry, 260

(2). Statement of Complaint. Where the caption of an examination only stated that it was taken upon the complaint of the overseers touching the chargeability and settlement of the pauper :-Held insufficient, Erle, J., dissentiente. Regina v. Ashwell, 278

(3). Statement of Complaint. The caption of examinations ought to state not only that they were taken

(5).Jurat-Examination and Grounds of Appeal.

Where it appeared from the caption of an examination, that the examination had been taken on the com

plaint of the removing parish before two justices who were named, and the examination was signed by two persons bearing the same names as those in the caption, but the words "before us" in the jurat were omitted:

Held, that it sufficiently appeared that the oath was administered to the examinant in the presence of the justices who took the examination.

The examination set out a birth settlement, and then proceeded to set out a derivative settlement, which the respondents failed to prove at the trial:

Held, that the birth settlement not being traversed by the appellants, it must be taken to be admitted. Regina v. Ellesmere, 551

(6). Sufficiently shews Jurisdiction of Justices.

The caption of an examination stated, that the examinations were taken before two justices in and for the West Riding, at Pontefract, upon the complaint of the overseers, &c., and that the said pauper hath come to inhabit and is now inhabiting, &c.:—

Held, that it sufficiently appeared on the face of the caption, that the ex