1822. REX v. JUSTICES of intention of the legislature that one single overseer out of many might act upon his own judgment, and might himself institute an appeal, I should have expected the language of the act of parliament to have been dif- MANCHESTER. ferent. The words are, "the overseer or overseers, and if he or they shall find that there are grounds of complaint on the part of the parish, he or they shall have a right of appeal." The word "find" implies judgment and deliberation, but that must apply to the whole body of the overseers, and cannot be limited to an individual overseer where there are more than one. HOLROYD, J.-I am of opinion that the right of appealing is given by this statute to the overseers as a body, and not individually. It is given to one, if there be but one, in the parish or township; but if there be more than one, the power is to be exercised by the majority; and upon this principle, that the act of the majority is the act of the whole, if the power is given for any general or public purposes. Grindley v. Barker (a). The right of appeal here is not given to the whole body of the overseers at all events, but only in a particular event, and that is, in case the overseer or overseers for the time being shall find, that the township is aggrieved by any act done, or omitted by the constable. Until the grievance is found and ascertained by them as a body, no appeal is given. I am therefore clearly of opinion that this rule must be discharged. BEST, J, concurred, and said, that the Court would be doing violence to the act, in holding that one overseer might appeal against the opinion of the majority. Rule discharged. (a) 1 Bos. & Pul. 229. Vide Cooke v. Loveland, 2 Bos. & Pul. 31, and Rex v. Foxcroft, Burr. 1017. 1822. Monday, An order of Sessions for assessing and levying a spe cific sum of money, to enable the county trea persons who The KING v. The JUSTICES of FLINTSHIRE. ON shewing cause against a rule for a certiorari to re move into this Court, an order made by the defendants at Sessions," for levying and paying into the hands of the treasurer of the county of Flint, the sum of 200l. 5s. 6d., to enable him to pay that sum in part payment of the surer to repay claim of Messrs. Sankey," it appeared that money had had advanced been borrowed from time to time from Messrs. Sankey, money for bankers at Holywell, by the county treasurer, under the poses, on the sanction of an order of Sessions, authorizing him to raise money upon the credit of the county rates, for the public face of it, in purposes of the county. Great part of the money so county pur credit of the county rates, is bad on the asmuch as it is burse, which the Sessions have no authority to make. a rate to reim- borrowed had been repaid, but a balance of 447/. 15s. 6d. remained due, and at the last July Sessions an order was made for assessing and levying a county rate for the purposes above mentioned. It was now objected, that this rate was bad upon the face of it, being made specifically for the purpose of reimbursing the individuals therein named. No objection was made as to the appropriation of the money to the public purposes of the county. It was conceded that the money borrowed had been properly applied, but The Court said, that the rate was clearly bad in point of form. It was a rate professedly made to reimburse, which the Justices had no authority to order, unless sanctioned by act of parliament. A rate might be generally made for certain objects, and might be applied to reimburse individuals who had advanced money for those objects; but a rate to reimburse could not be supported. The certiorari therefore must issue; but probably all par ties would be satisfied with the understanding that the practice of making such rates should cease in the county. Rule absolute. Scarlett, Littledale, and D. F. Jones, for the defendants, and Parke for the prosecutor. 1822. The KING v. The JUSTICES of FLINTSHIRE. ther a criminal will lie against Justices for making a false mandamus, return to a unless the return is cor IN a former Term a mandamus having issued, command- Quare, wheing two Justices to appoint overseers for three places, information called Polton, Bere, and Torrisholme, stated to be all comprehended in one township, in the county of Lancaster, the defendants made a return, stating, that the places in question were three distinct townships, and not one, as was urged for the prosecution. The prosecutors then moved for a criminal information against the defendants an alleged false return. There was no suggestion that a false return the defendants bad acted corruptly, or from any improper motive; but it was contended, that this was the most proper mode of proceeding against Justices for making a false return to a mandamus; for though an indictment would lie, yet, as the Grand Jury, to whom the bill should for ruptly and wilfully false? Where Justices had made to a manda- nisi for a cri minal informa tion; and, on shewing cause be presented, might possibly be composed of county Justices, such mode of proceeding might not be attended against that rule, contra dictory facts were disclosed, which were directed to be tried by an issue, and after an issue had been prepared and delivered, the Justices had abandoned the issue, and obtained a Judge's order for staying proceedings, without prejudice to the question of costs, the Court ordered the Justices to pay the prosecutor the costs of preparing and delivering the issue. |