« EelmineJätka »
made, were appointed by the select vestry chosen under the local Acts. That is a vestry of which the powers are not transferred, as the appellants will contend they are, to the new vestry appointed under The Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. (The Court then called on the other side.)
Knapp, for the appellants. The rate is bad, having been made by a body which has now no jurisdiction. Sect. 8 of stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. enacts that the new vestry chosen as provided by the Act "shall forthwith be deemed to constitute the vestry of such parish, and shall supersede any existing vestry therein, and exercise the powers and privileges held by such existing vestry," save as provided by the Act. Such new vestry therefore ought to have appointed the Governors and Directors. In Vaughan v. Imray (a) the effect of stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120., in transferring to the new vestry the powers and duties of old vestries under local Acts, was fully discussed. [Crompton J. There it was held that the old vestries had no longer power to make rates, their functions in that respect being transferred to the new vestry. The question here is, whether, although the power of rating be transferred to the new vestry, the select vestry still retain their power to appoint the Governors and Directors.] The old select vestry are, under the local Acts, to be elected annually by and out of the general vestry it is clear, therefore, that the power in question is one of those "powers and privileges" which are now transferred to the new vestry by stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. s. 8. Even if, as may perhaps be contended on the other side, such powers and privileges do not include (a) 1 E. & E. 633.
the power of making poor rates, that power is expressly transferred to the new vestry by sect. 3 of the amending The QUEEN Act, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112., which enacts that "all the duties, powers, and privileges (including such as relate to the affairs of the church, or the management or relief of the poor, or the administration of any money or other property applicable to the relief of the poor), which might have been performed or exercised by any open or elected or other vestry or any such meeting as aforesaid in any parish, under any local Act or otherwise, at the time of the passing of" stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120., "shall be deemed to have become transferred to and vested in the vestry constituted by such last mentioned Act." It is true that the proviso which follows provides "that all duties and powers relating to the affairs of the church, or the management or relief of the poor, or the administration of any money or other property applicable to the relief of the poor, which at the time of the passing of the said Act were vested in or might be exercised by any guardians, governors, trustees, or commissioners, or any body other than any open or elected or other vestry," &c., "shall continue vested in and be exercised by such guardians, governors, trustees, or commissioners" &c. But the powers in question were exercised by the vestry, and not by any other body; and are therefore not within the proviso. [Crompton J. That seems to be so. The argument, therefore, for the appellants is that, if this power to appoint Governors and Directors is a matter relating to the management or relief of the poor, or the administration of money applicable to such relief, it is transferred to the new vestry, under sect. 3 of the amending Act and that, if it be not such a matter, it is trans
ferred from the old vestry to the new, under sects. 8, 90, That is the dilemma in which the respondents are placed.
of the first Act.]
B. C. Robinson, in reply. The election of the Governors and Directors is a matter which falls within the proviso of sect. 3 of the amending Act. [Crompton J. How can you shew that the power of electing them was ever vested in " any guardians, governors" &c., "or any body other than any open or elected or other vestry"?] It is clear that the power to make rates, which was a power "relating to the management or relief of the poor," was vested by the local Acts (which are still unrepealed), in the Governors, at the time of the passing of The Metropolis Local Management Act, 1855. And the proviso directs that in such cases the powers shall remain in and be exercised by "such" "Governors :" that is, by Governors elected in the same manner as under the local Acts. [Blackburn J. I think that construction cannot be supported. Crompton J. And, even if the power to make these rates were not a power relating to the management or relief of the poor, it would still have been transferred to the new vestry under the first Act. I think that the dilemma which has been already suggested is unanswerable.]
Per CURIAM. (CROMPTON, HILL and BLACKBUrn Js.)
The QUEEN against The Guardians of the Poor Wednesday, of the CAMBRIDGE Union.
1. The general power of a Court of Quarter Sessions to adjourn to the next Sessions the hearing of an appeal, where the particular Act giving the appeal does not limit the hearing and determination of it to one Sessions only, extends to cases where the hearing of the appeal has commenced and the evidence is partly before the Court. The Sessions have power, in such a case, to adjourn the further hearing to the next Sessions, for the purpose of ad itional evidence being procured: or for any cause which, in their discretion, may render the adjournment expedient.
2. Sessions may exercise this power of adjournment in appeals under The Lunatic Asylums Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97.; the Act not limiting the hearing and determination to the Sessions for which the appeal is entered, or at which it is first gone into.
The settlement relied upon by the respondents at
Act, 16 & 17
Power of Sessions to adjourn a part heard appeal.
the trial of the appeal was a settlement by apprenticeThe QUEEN ship: and, in support of this settlement, and in order to enable them to give secondary evidence of the indenture of apprenticeship of the pauper, the respondents called evidence to prove a proper search for the indenture, and the loss of the same. The Sessions, on hearing this evidence, and on the objection of the appellants, held that a sufficient search for the missing indenture had not been made by the respondents, and refused to admit secondary evidence of the same.
The respondents then applied to the Sessions to adjourn the further hearing of the appeal to the then next Quarter Sessions of the peace, in order to enable them to make further search for the said missing indenture.
On the part of the appellants it was objected that stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97. limited the jurisdiction of the Sessions over the appeal to the particular Sessions at which the same was then being tried, and the Sessions had no power to adjourn the further hearing of the appeal, as contended for by the respondents; and that no subsequent Sessions had power over the appeal, and that the order of 14th May 1860 ought to be quashed, there being no evidence before the Sessions to support the same.
The Sessions held that they had jurisdiction to adjourn the further hearing of the appeal to the then next Quarter Sessions of the peace; and they made an order adjourning the same accordingly, on payment of the costs of the day by the respondents to the appellants, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on this point. And at the then next Quarter Sessions of the peace, held at Warwick on 16th October 1860,