INDEX. AMOUNT OF RATING REQUIRED FOR LICENCE: 2. ANIMUS REVERTENDI: See POOR. BEER: See EXCISEABLE LIQUOR. BEER-HOUSE-Amount of Rating required for PAGE CASES: BEER LICENCE: See EXCISEABLE LIQUOR. BREAD, Sale of otherwise than by Weight- HILL, APPELLANT; SPONDENT BROWNING, RE- .. BURTHEN OF PROOF: See PUBLIC HOUSE. 1, 2. 208 DAVIS. SCRACE (Law Rep. 4 C. P. 172) REG. v. HUTCHINSON (4 E. & B. 200; 24 L. J. CERTIFICATE THAT HIGHWAY BE NO LONGER COSTS OF APPEAL: See PUBLIC HOUSE. 2. DESERTION OF WIFE AND CHILDREN: Ste EXCISEABLE LIQUOR-Beer-Billiard Licence JONES, APPELLANT; WHITTAKER, RE- SPONDENT HIGHWAY Certificate that Highway be no PAGE 210 parishes, and living in the neighbourhood of the roads, obtained a rule for a certiorari to bring up the orders and certificates for the purpose of quashing them on the ground that they were void by reason of the notices not having been affixed at the places required by law. By 5 & 6 Wm. 4 c 50, s. 85, after their view and before making their certificate, the justices are to direct the surveyor to affix a notice in form No. 19 at the place and by the side of each end of the highway from whence the same is proposed to be diverted or stopped up, &c., and such notices having been published, and proof thereof given, the justices shall proceed to certify. A notice had been posted at A, B, C, respectively, but no notice at all had been posted at D-Held, that the actual publication of the prescribed notices at each end of the road to be dealt with was a condition precedent to the jurisdiction of the two justices; and that, although the roads formed one system, yet each of the roads having been treated as a separate road, this condition had not be n fulfilled, and the orders were therefore void as made without jurisdiction. Held, also, that, though a certiorari is not a writ of course, yet as the applicant had by reason of his local situation a peculiar grievance of his own, and was not merely applying as one of the public, he was entitled to the writ ex debito justitiæ. THE QUEEN . THE JUSTICES OF SURREY INNKEEPER OPENING HOUSE ON SUNDAY: See PUBLIC HOUSE. 1, 2. IRREMOVEABILITY BY RESIDENCE: See POOR. 1, 2. LEAVING CARRIAGE ON HIGHWAY: See TURNPIKE ACT. LIABILITY FOR AVOIDING TOLL: See TURNPIKE Аст. LIABILITY TO FEES TO SURVEYOR: See METROPOLITAN BUILDding Act. METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122), 88. 3, 51-" Ouer"-Liability to Fees to Surveyor.] In 1866, notice was given by a builder to the district surveyor, of his intention to erect three houses, under s. 38 of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122 (the Metropolitan Building Act). The surveyor inspected the houses, and the roofs were covered in on the 9th of July, 1866; and on the 9th of August, 1866, the surveyor became entitled to certain fees from the builder, owner, or occupier," under s. 51. T. first became owner in 1869; and the surveyor, after due demand, took out a summons against T. for the fees :-Held, that "owner" meant owner for the time being when the fees became due; and that T. was, therefore, not liable. PAGE 217 TUBB, APPELLANT; GOOD, RESPONDENT 216 NOTICES CONDITION PRECEDENT TO JUSTICES' JURISDICTION: See HIGHWAY. PARTY AGGRIEVED: See HIGHWAY. PIERS OF HARBOUR: See POOR-RATE. 1. POOR-Removal-Irremoveability by Residence-Desertion of Wife and Children24 & 25 Vict. c. 55, s. 3.] About thirteen years ago, in consequence of a quarrel, a man separated from his wife and daughter, and took other lodgings in the same parish, where he cohabited with another woman, by whom he had children, and resided with them up to the present time. The wife, shortly after the separation, having become chargeable to the parish, the man, under threat of legal proceedings by the parish officers, paid her 2s. 6d. a week. The wife afterwards removed with the daughter (who was eighteen years old, unemancipated, and had no settlement of her own), to another parish, where the allowance by the husband was continued, and where, after residing more than one year, mother and daughter became chargeable:-Held, that the conduct of the man amounted to a desert on of his wife within the meaning of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 55, 8, 3, and that the wife was therefore irremoveable; but that the daughter was removeable to her father's place of settlement, as the mother, by the desertion, did not become the head of the family. THE QUEEN, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE GUARDIANS OF KINGSTON UNION, APPELLANTS; v. THE OVERSEERS OF ST. MARY, ISLINGTON, RESPONDENTS The 2. POOR-Removal-Irremoveability by Reason of Residence-Animus Revertendi-9 & 10 c. 66, 8 1.] W. H. was the illegitimate son (born in 1847 at R.) of a single woman, who married in 1858, and he lived with his mother and her husband, and was maintained by them. They had lived for more than a year in the parish of L. on the 5th of August, 1862, when W. H. was elected a pupil at "the School for the Indigent Blind," in another union, being then about fifteen years and six months old. school was a charitable institution supported by voluntary contributions; the pupils were lodged, and clothed, and fed, as well as taught, out of the funds of the institution. The pupils were discharged by the committee when they were sufficiently instructed, or when they attained twenty-one years, or for misconduct. W. H. remained and continually resided at the school as a pupil until the 19th of July, 1868, when he was discharged, being more than twentyone years old. During his residence at the school he was wholly maintained, clothed, lodged, and fed out of the school funds, and neither his mother nor her husband contributed to his support; but he went to them at L., and lodged with them for five weeks in the summer of each of the years 1863, 1864, and 1865, and for six weeks in the summers of 1866 and 1867, and during those periods he was maintained by his mother and her husband. On his discharge from the school in July, 1868, W. H. returned to his mother and her husband at L.. and was maintained by them till March, 1869, when he became chargeable to L. He had no other settlement than his birth settlement. On appeal against an order for the removal of W. H. to his place of settlement, the quarter sessions drew the inference from the above facts that there was PAGE 206 an animus revertendi in W. H.; and they held that he had constructively resided with his mother and her husband in L. for more than a year, and was therefore irremoveable:-Held, that the sessions were justified in deciding that the pauper had continued to reside with the parents and was irremoveable. PAGE THE QUEEN, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE GUARDIANS OF THE HENLEY UNION, APPELLANTS; v. THE GUARDIANS OF THE ABINGDON UNION, RESPONDENTS.. 214 3. POOR-Settlement by Paying Public Taxes of Parish-3 Wm. & Mary, c. 11, s. 6-Borough Improvement Rate and Lamp Rate.] Under a local Act, commissioners were authorized to levy rates for paving and lighting the streets, &c., within the city of E., on the several owners and occupiers of all houses within the city. The commissioners were empowered to appoint two or more of the inhabitants of each parish in the city to be assessors of the rates, and the assessors were required to make the rates and the commissioners were to settle and sign the same. The commissioners were also to appoint the overseers of the respective parishes to collect the rates. The rates were made and collected in each parish by the assessors and collectors as required by the Act. T. occupied a house in a parish in the city for one year, at a yearly rent above 10., and paid his share of the rates made under the local Act-Held, that these rates were public taxes of the parish within the meaning of 3 Wm. & Mary, c. 11, s. 6, and that T. had acquired a settlement in the parish. THE QUEEN, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE POOR-RATE Pateable Property - Piers of Harbour.] By 56 Geo. 3. c. lxxxi., certain commissioners were appointed for improving the harbour of New Shoreham. By s. 26 the property of all the wharves, quays, buildings, .. and of all works erected in and about the harbour, in pursuance of the Acts, were vested in the commissioners. By s. 27 the commissioners were required to deepen, cleanse, scour, and enlarge the channel of the harbour, and to make new piers, with the necessary wharfing, to confine the channel opposite to and near the intended entrance into the harbour. By 8 83, after the piers and other works had been made, there was to be paid by every person, who should import or export any Inerchandise within the limits of the harbour, certain duties. The commissioners enlarged the channel so as to make a new entrance in the harbour, and built new piers, as authorized, and received duties on all merchandise brought into the harbour-Held, that the soil in the channel was not vested by the statute in the commissioners, and they were not the occupiers so as to be rate able to the relief of the poor: that the soil on which the piers were built was vested in thera, and that they were the Occupiers of the piers, but their occupation was not sufficiently connected with earning 202 the duties to make them rateable in respect of the piers. THE COMMISSIONERS FOR IMPROVING THE 1. PUBLIC HOUSE-Innkeeper opening his House on Sunday Travellers-Burthen of Proof -11 & 12 Vict, c. 49, s. 1-Wine and Beer House Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 15.] Upon an information against an innkeeper, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 49, s. 1, for opening his house for the sale of beer during the prohibited hours on Sunday, the burthen of proof that the innkeeper knew that the persons supplied with beer were not travellers, lies upon the informer; and this question is not affected by the Wine and Beer House Act, 1869. Davis v. Scrace (Law Rep. 4 C. P. 172) followed. MORGAN, APPELLANT; HEDGER, RE 2. PUBLIC HOUSE- Innkeeper opening his House on Sunday-Travellers-Burthen of Proof-11 & 12 Vict. c. 49, s. 1-Costs of Appeal.] Upon an information against an innkeeper, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 49, s. 1, for opening his house for the sale of wine and beer during the prohibited hours on Sunday, the burthen of proof that the innkeeper knew that the persons supplied with beer or wine were not travellers, lies upon the informer. Eight persons went to a refreshment-room at a railway station (which room was attached to and formed part of the defendant's hotel) on Sunday morning at 11.10, six of whom had a glass of beer and the other two a glass of sherry each, standing at the counter. Four of the men were residents in the town within half a mile of the station; the other four were strangers. A train was due at 11.13. The strangers and three of the residents went by the train, and the fourth (who had been to see his son off) returned home. Two of the three residents who went by the train were seen walking in the town between 2 and 3 in the afternoon of the same day. There was a printed notice hung up in a conspicuous part of the refreshment-100m int. ating that refreshments were supplied during the time of Divine service on Sundays only to travellers, and that those who improperly obtained them would subject themselves to penalties and it was proved that the defendant had given directions to his servants to inquire, before supplying any refreshment, whether or not the person asking for it was a traveller. The magistrates found that the four residents were not "travellers," but did not in terms find that the defendant knew it; and they convicted him in a penalty:-The Court quashed the conviction, on the ground that the onus of prov ing knowledge in the defendant rested on the informer; and intimated that, inasmuch as this rule had been so repeatedly laid down by the Court, they would in future, when a conviction was quashed for want of such proof, consider it right to impose costs. COPLEY, APPELLANT; BURTON, RE SPONDENT PAGE 197 223 |