not authorize the reception of secondary evidence of the contents of the rate books, Reg. v. Orton (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 89; 1 New Sess. C. 567. A crown office subpœna is the proper course.

P. 720, after note (t),

But it is now held sufficient to state, "I am now residing in and receiving relief from, and am actually chargeable to the township of B," Reg. v. Great Bolton (Inh), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 122; or that "I have lived in the township of Preston for some time past, and am now residing in the workhouse in that town. I have been and am now chargeable to the said township of P," Reg. v. Manchester (Inh.), id. 126.

P. 721, after note (b),

And a copy of a document produced before the removing justices must be sent, or at least a good excuse offered for not doing so. Where the copy of a bond so produced was not sent, or any excuse given, an order of sessions confirming the order of removal was quashed, though after service of a ground of appeal, insisting on this defect, a copy of the bond was sent to appellant overseers, and the examination of a witness which had been properly sent contained in effect a copy of the bond, Reg v. Rainton (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 135.

add after note (c),

The examination of a witness stated that the pauper under letters of administration granted to him had become possessed of a tenement in appellant parish, and showed that he had obtained a settlement in respect of it. A copy of letters of administration corresponding in every respect with those described by the witness was sent with the examination to the appellant parish. Held, that it sufficiently appeared that the letters of administration, a copy of which was sent, had been produced before the removing magistrate. Reg. v. St. Anne's, Westminster (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 113; 1 New Sess. C. 608.

1. 5 from top, insert " on," before "which."

P. 725, after note (i), add,

A statement that A. is child of B. is a sufficient allegation that he is his legitimate child, Reg. v. Totley (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 138.

after note (k), add,

When a date is material with reference to the state of the law at the time a settlement is alleged to have been gained, such date must be stated precisely. Therefore, where a pauper was removed to A. as his birth settlement, and examinations alleged that he was born out of wedlock in A. in or about 1833, nothing being said as to his mother's settlement, it was held, that as the words "in or about" the year 1833 did not necessarily exclude 14th Aug. 1834, the time when stat. 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, came into operation, the examinations were insufficient, Reg. v. St. Paul, Covent Garden (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 109.

after note (p),

Examinations showed relief given by appellant parish to pauper's father

while residing out of the appellant parish, at a time when pauper was twentyseven years old, and containing nothing to raise the presumption that pauper was at that time emancipated. Held, that they were sufficient, and needed not to negative the fact of pauper's emancipation at the time the relief was given to his father, Reg. v. Littleshall (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 97 ; 1 New Sess. C. 576, S. C.

Examinations contained a statement that pauper's father had gained a settlement in appellant parish in 1790, and had, in 1838, been removed to the appellant parish by an order unappealed against; that pauper was emancipated in 1823, and that neither pauper or his father had gained any other settlement in their own right. Held, that this was evidence of the pauper's derivative settlement in appellant parish, on which the sessions were bound to act, Reg. v. Brighthelmstone (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 137.

A ground of appeal, setting up a derivative settlement of the pauper in the respondent parish, averred that pauper's father had never gained any settlement in his own right, and was unemancipated at the time his father (pauper's grandfather) acquired a settlement in the respondent parish. Held, that this settlement sufficiently shewed a derivative settlement of pauper in respondent parish, Reg. v. Rothwell (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 159.

P. 727, add to note (c), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 157; add to note (y),

The above sufficiently shows the jurisdiction of the justices, Reg. v. Stockton-upon-Tees (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 128, but "for a borough" will not suffice, and the order of sessions confirming such an order of removal was quashed, S. C.

P. 728, add to note (h),

An impression made on an order with ink, by means of a wooden block, is a sufficient sealing, Reg. v. St. Paul, Covent Garden (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 109; 1 New Sess. C. 109.

Justices need not sign their christian names at full length to an order of removal, Reg. v. Worthenbury (Inh), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 144.

Lines 1 and 2 from bottom, dele "the order, &c. must be suspended also." Line 4 from bottom, after "person," add, "it must be also suspended as to." P. 732, note (e), for "Townslat" read "Townstall."

P. 734, add after note (r),

The notice of chargeability must in fact proceed from a majority of the overseers of a parish, or from at least three of the guardians of it. Accordingly, a notice of chargeability signed by three overseers of a parish which had in all six overseers of the poor, (viz. four overseers and two churchwardens) was held bad, Reg. v. Westbury (Inh.), 5 Q. B. 500.

And it seems that the notice must, on the face of it, show, e. g. by signatures of parties or otherwise, that it so proceeds from such majority, S. C.

Where the laws for relief of the poor in a single parish are administered by a board of guardians of the poor of the parish, under 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 39, they are officers of the parish, and a notice of chargeability signed by

three or more of them is well signed, Reg. v. Lambeth (Guardians of the poor of), 5 Q. B. 513. (7 June, 1845); 14 L. J. (M. C.) 133.

Secus, as to a like notice signed by guardians of an united district of several parishes united for relief of poor; for they are not officers of those parishes, Reg. v. St. Mary, Southampton (Inh.), 5 Q. B. 513; 14 L. J. (M. C.) 133, S. C.; 7 June, 1845.

An order for removal of a woman named, and her illegitimate daughter not named, was grounded on a notice of chargeability of the mother only. The child was under seven years old, but it does not appear from the report whether that fact was so stated in the order, or whether any thing respecting its age appeared there; as to which, see pp. 727, 762. The sessions quashed the order as to the child, because the notice of chargeability on which the order was founded did not name it, and confirmed it as to the mother, subject to a case. Held, that as the child could not be separated from the mother, it was immaterial whether the child was named in the order of removal or not; for it must be removed or go with the mother, though not removed under the order.

P. 740, after note (c), add,

An order of removal was served on 7 Aug., notice and grounds of appeal (dated Sept. 6) "for the then next sessions" served on 14th Oct. The next sessions were held on 17th Oct. By practice of sessions eight days' notice of trying an appeal was required. Neither party attended at the October sessions. Affidavit that deponent, respondent's attorney, was informed and believed" that no appeal was then entered. At the Epiphany sessions, in respondent's absence, no further notice of trial having been given, the order of removal was quashed, with 57. costs. Held a grievance entitling respondent to apply to quash order of sessions, and that the sessions acted without jurisdiction in entering the appeal, Reg. v. Seven Oaks (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 92.

P. 744, after note (d), add,

A notice of appeal against an order of removal was signed by a majority of the parish officers. It begun "We, the undersigned, being a majority of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish." The presumption is, that it had been signed by the majority, on behalf of the whole body, till the contrary is shown by the respondent, Reg. v. West Riding, Yorkshire (Justices), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 119. See Reg. v. Westbury (Inh.), 5 Q. B. 753, as to signature of notice of chargeability by majority of overseers in Addendum to p. 734.

P. 749, 1. 10 from bottom, for "rating" read "renting."

P. 751, after note (e), add,

As it is the duty of the sessions to determine a question of fact, the Queen's Bench will not interfere with their decision, though they may entirely differ in opinion, and though an order has been quashed and a case granted. Examinations of A. and B. from whom a derivative settlement was set up, stated them to have been married "at the church at B." Grounds of appeal denied the fact, and declared the examination defective for not

giving the name of the church at B. as there were two parish churches there (naming them). Appellants proved there were in B. village two parishes, and two parish churches within 200 yards of each other, each commonly called B. church. The sessions refused to let the respondents go into their case of settlement, quashed the order, and granted a case. Order of sessions confirmed, Reg. v. Bakewell (Inh.), 1 New Sess. C. 571.

P. 752, after note (k), add,

A ground of appeal against an order of removal stated the pauper to have been rated for and in respect of a tenement in the township of H. consisting of two dwelling-houses of the value of 107. Held insufficient, for omitting to state that the dwelling-houses were "separate and distinct" pursuant to 6 G. IV. c. 57, Reg. v. Ripon (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 102; 1 New Sess. C.

612.

P. 762, last line but one of first entire paragraph, after "apprenticeship" insert "or."

P. 769, after note (u),

The examinations on which an order of removal was founded, showed the maiden settlement of the pauper's mother to be in the appellant parish. They also showed that her husband (pauper's father) had acquired a settlement by renting a tenement, though in what parish was not stated. Held, that the examinations were insufficient, as they showed the derivative settlement ex parte materná extinguished by the father's settlement, which did not appear to be in the appellant parish. Order of removal held properly quashed, Reg. v. St. Margaret's, Westminster (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 131.

P. 793, 1.8 from top, after "exceptive hiring but," add "this is otherwise." P. 855, add after (k),

In Reg. v. Great Bolton (Inh.), 14 L. J. (M. C.), 122; 1 New Sess. C. 636, the signatures of the justices were omitted in the copy of an order of removal sent pursuant to 4 & 5 W. IV. c. 76, s. 79. The sessions, on appeal, quashed the order upon this objection, subject to a case for the opinion of the court. The respondents took no step to bring up the case, but within six months the pauper having again become chargeable, obtained a second order of removal to the appellant parish on the same settlement. On these particular facts, the order having been quashed for mere form only, it was held, first, that the quashing the first order was not conclusive between the parties; second, that the respondents might obtain such fresh order notwithstanding they had applied for and obtained liberty to state a case for the opinion of the court, on the decision of the sessions, as to the first order. See S. P. admitted in Reg. v. St. Mary, Lambeth (Guardians), and Reg. v. Ellal (Inh.), Addendum to p. 648.

Lord Denman further stated, that the rule that an order of removal quashed on appeal is conclusive between the same parties, is always open to the exception of a fresh settlement having been gained. Per Lord Denman in Reg. v. Great Bolton, citing R. v. Wheelock, and the second point in R. v. Wick St. Lawrence.

P. 897, add at end of last note "See p. 37."

P. 907, add after (t),

The service of the notice need not be personal, and may be made at the dwelling-house, Reg. v. North Riding, Yorkshire (Justices), in re Lunn, 1 New Sess. C. 574; 14 L. J. (M. C.) 91.

P. 917, 918, dele all relating to dogs,

For by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 47, s. 1, so much of 7 & 8 G. IV. c. 29, as relates to dog stealing, viz. s. 21, is repealed, and stealing a dog is made a misdemeanour punishable on summary conviction before two or more justices (or before one police magistrate in the metropolitan district) by imprisonment with or without hard labour, for not exceeding six calendar months, or by paying over and above the value of the dog such sum not exceeding 201. as to the justices seems fit. A second offence is an indictable misdemeanour punished by fine, or by not exceeding eighteen months' imprisonment, with or without hard labour, or by both. The having in possession a stolen dog or its skin, with other offences relating to dogs, are also variously punished by this act.

P. 936, first whole paragraph, 1. 2, before "subject-matters" add "penal or other."

1. 3, before "jurisdiction" add "appellate."

P. 942, add after (q),

Affidavit on which mandamus to justices to enter continuances and hear an appeal, is moved for, should state all the points on which the sessions proceeded, and every fact material to the case; or the rule will be discharged with costs, Reg. v. West Riding, Yorkshire (Justices), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 119. P. 947, add to note (n),

A party in whose favour an order of justices is made, cannot move for certiorari in order to remove and quash it, till after the time for appeal has elapsed; but the party against whom the order is made may move at any earlier time, Reg. v. Willatts and another, 14 L. J. (M. C.) 157.

P. 948, 1. 3 from bottom, add as a note after "words,"

A local act contained several clauses relating to local proceedings before magistrates; then a clause "that no proceedings in pursuance of the act should be removed by certiorari," and by a subsequent clause gave an appeal to sessions to parties aggrieved by any decision of the commissioners under the act. The clause taking away the certiorari was held to apply to all proceedings under the act, whether on appeal or otherwise, Reg. v. Lindsay (Justices), 14 L. J. (M. C.) 151.

P. 951, add after note (p),

If an order of sessions is in fact removed by certiorari, though that remedy has been taken away by statute, the writ may either be quashed quia improvide emanavit, R. v. Allen, 15 East, 336, 339, 1 Burr. 488; or the objection may be taken on showing cause against the rule for the certiorari, R. v. Fowler and others, 1 Ad. & E. 836, or when the case is called on in the crown paper, if the certiorari has been obtained on counsel's signature, R. v. Bird, 2 B. & Ald. 524. See also ante, p. 709; 2 Nol. 601, 4th ed.

P. 955, after (b), add,