REGISTER. See APPRENTICESHIP, 2.

RELIEF. See REMOVAL, 9, 10, 11, 14.

REMOVAL.-1. Appeal, notice of Adjourned sessions for different divisions of county.-Where quarter sessions are regularly held on certain fixed days, at certain places, in different divisions of a county, and each by adjournment from the preceding, the fourteen days notice required by the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 81, of an appeal to be tried in any one of the divisions, should be reckoned with reference to the first day of the sessions held in the first of such divisions, though the practice of the sessions be to try all appeals in the division in which the respondent parish is situate. Reg. v. The Justices of Suffolk, 2 New S. C. 554.

2. Appeal, notice of Amendment — Abandonment — Reviewing decision of sessions.-Notices to enter and try an appeal were served by appellants; afterwards, on the same day, one of the notices was recalled by a clerk to the appellant's attorney, and by him altered by striking out the word "enter," (as the appeal had been already entered at a previous session,) and by adding a notice that the former notice was abandoned. This second notice was then re-served without being re-signed by the parish officers of the appellant parish. At the trial these facts were proved, but the appellants were unable to prove that the second notice was served in due time, in consequence of the absence of the clerk who served it, whereupon the sessions dismissed the appeal "because the notice was not sufficiently proved:" Held, that the appellant's attorney was justified in having an informal notice amended after it had been signed; that the word "enter" in the original notice did not make it bad; but that the second notice, though insufficient as a notice of appeal, for want of proof as to time of service, was good as an abandonment of first notice, and that the Quære, whether this court sessions had come to a right decision. will review a decision of the sessions on a preliminary question of fact. Reg. v. The Justices of Somersetshire, 2 New S. C. 645.

3. Appeal-Option of appealing after service of order or removal of pauper.-An appellant parish has the option of appealing to the next practicable sessions, either after the service of the order of removal, with the other documents required by the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 79, or after the actual removal of the pauper. Reg. v. The Overseers of Leeds, 2 New S. C. 595.

4. Appeal Parish and township-Question of fact, whether township maintained its own poor-Decision of sessions final. --The township of K. is situate within the parish of K., and an order of removal on a settlement stated to have been gained in the township was directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of K. Against this a notice of appeal was sent by the overseers of the township of K. At the trial a preliminary objection was taken, that the churchwardens of the parish ought to have joined with the overseers in the notice of appeal, whereupon a witness was called, who stated that the township maintained its own poor exclusively of the parish;

the sessions, however, not believing that evidence, held the objection fatal, and dismissed the appeal: Held, that as the sessions had decided on a question of fact, their decision was final, and a mandamus to hear the appeal was refused. Reg. v. The Justices of Flintshire, 2 New S. C. 572.

5. Appeal Within what time - Second removal under same order. Order of removal from M. to D. of a man, his wife and children, was served on the 27th March, and the man alone removed under it on the 22nd April; the man having returned to M., was, on the 23rd of December, removed with his wife and family to D., under the same order: Held, that an appeal by D. to the January sessions was too late. Reg. v. The Justices of Durham, 2 New S. C. 665.

6. Evidence of settlement-Former order quashed--Conclusiveness -Entry at sessions-Evidence in explanation.-On the trial of an appeal against an order of removal, it appeared that a former order had been quashed on appeal between the same parishes, and relating to the same paupers, and an entry of it in the minute book of the previous sessions was as follows: "Order quashed, without any special entry, as the court has no evidence before them to enable them to make such entry." The sessions, after hearing evidence explanatory of the circumstances under which this entry had been made, decided that it was not conclusive as to the settlement of the paupers: Held, that the sessions were right in so doing. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Landkey, 2 New S. C. 623.

7. Same. On the trial of an appeal against an order of removal, it appeared, by an entry in the minute book, that a former order of removal was quashed on the ground that the examinations were insufficient to support the order: Held, that parol evidence was admissible to explain this entry, and to show that the order was not quashed on the merits. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Widecombe in the Moor, 2 New S. C. 539.

8. Same. An entry by the quarter sessions that an order was quashed not upon the merits, without prejudice to the making of any other order, &c., prevents it from operating as an estoppel between the parishes, and is conclusive that the question of settlement was not adjudicated upon; and therefore, on the hearing of an appeal against a subsequent order respecting the same settlement, it is not competent for the appellants to adduce evidence to show, notwithstanding such entry, that the former order was in fact quashed on the merits. Reg v. The Inhabitants of St. Anne, Westminster, (In re Wood), 2 New S. C. 525.

9. Evidence of settlement-Relief-Statement of relieving officer of union no evidence against parish.-A statement by the relieving officer of a union that he gave relief to a pauper whilst resident in the parish of M. and charged it in his account to the parish of W., both parishes being in the same union, is no evidence of relief given by the parish of W. from which to infer a settlement. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Little Marlow, 2 New S. C. 576.

-

10. Evidence of settlement Relief by guardians. A pauper while residing in parish A. was relieved on account of parish B. by a relieving officer of a union in which parish B. is situate, by order to that effect of the board of guardians of that union: Held, that such relief afforded evidence from which the sessions might infer that the pauper was settled in parish B. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Crondali, 2 New S. C. 667.

11. Examinations -Emancipation-Relief. An order for the removal of a pauper from B. to L. was made upon examinations which stated that he had never gained a settlement in his own right; that he married in 1812, then being twenty years old; that his father was married a second time in 1824, soon after which the father received relief from L., while residing out of that parish, and continued to do so till his death; and that the pauper's grandfather had lived and died in L.: Held, that the examinations were insufficient to prove a derivative settlement of the pauper in L., as it did not appear from them that the relief given to his father had reference to a settlement gained by him previous to the pauper's emancipation by marriage in 1812. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Bangor, 2 New S. C. 627. 12. Examinations-Identity-How objection raised in grounds of appeal-Decision of sessions final.-In the examination for the removal of a pauper from L. to C., M. S. stated that she was the widow of A. S., who was settled, as she had heard, in C., and J. S. stated that he was the brother of A. S., who was born in C.; C. appealed, and in their grounds of appeal alleged, that the order, notice of chargeability and the examinations were respectively defective and bad on the face thereof; and that the examinations contained no sufficient legal evidence of the pauper being settled in C., or having come to settle in or being chargeable to L.: Held, that the sessions had a right to allow the appellants on this ground to raise the objection that there was not a statement of the identity of A. S. mentioned in the first examination with A. S. in the second; and that their decision was final. Reg. v. The Justices of Staffordshire, 2 New S. C. 557.

13. Examination of prisoner-59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 28.-In order to make the examination of a prisoner, taken as to his settlement, under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, c. 28, admissible in evidence, it must be proved that he still continues a prisoner. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Widecombe in the Moor, 2 New S. C. 539.

14. Examination - Relief. Held also, that the sessions were right in holding that a statement in the examination that the pauper received relief from Hartpury aforesaid, "sufficiently showed that she had received relief from the parish officers of Hartpury on account of the parish." Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Hartpury, 2 New S. C. 648.

15. Examination - What to be sent to appellants.-Where a pauper was examined before justices in February, and again in March, on which last occasion an order of removal was made; a copy of the statement made by the pauper on the first occasion not

being properly executed, and not being an examination on which the order was made, need not be sent by the respondents under the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 79. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Crondall, 2 New S. C. 667.

16. Grounds of appeal, general denial of-Settlement after special ground. The examination stated two modes of settlement in the appellant parish, 1. By birth; 2. By hiring and service. The grounds of appeal were as follows: 1. That a former order of removal, relating to the same settlement, had been quashed; 2 and 3. Stating the removal of the parents of the pauper's husband to a third parish under orders unappealed against; 4. Relief given by that third parish; 5. Denying the settlement by hiring and service; 6. That the said paupers were not settled in the appellant parish in any manner whatever: Held, that, under these grounds of appeal, it was not competent to the appellants to prove that the birthplace of the pauper's husband was not in their parish.-Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Widecombe in the Moor, 2 New S. C. 539.

17. Ground of appeal-No copy of order sent-Inaccurate copy. -Under the general objection "that no copy or counterpart of the order of removal has been sent by post or otherwise," it is not competent for the appellants to object that the copy sent by the respondents is inaccurate, some few words being omitted. R. v. St. Anne, Westminster (Re Jones), 2 New S. C. 517.

And see APPRENTICESHIP. RENTING TENEMENT.

RENTING TENEMENT.-Settlement by-Keep of cowPasture fed Contract- Evidence.- On the trial of an appeal against an order, founded on a settlement by renting the keep of a cow, the evidence was that in the year 1811 the cow was hired of B. by D. and was kept in the pasture season on the pasture lands of B.'s farm; that D. put the cow where there was feed for her, but nothing was said either by B. or D. as to the manner or in what particular lands the cow was to be fed: Held, that this was not sufficient evidence from which the sessions might infer a contract that the cow should be pasture fed, and consequently that no settlement was gained by it under the 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Mendham, 2 New S. C. 560.

SENTENCE. See CONSPIRACY.

SETTLEMENT. See APPRENTICESHIP, 1, 2. HIRING AND SERVICE. REMOVAL, 6-14. RENTING TENEMENT.

SPECIAL CASE. See CERTIORARI, 1, 2. EXCISE, 2.

SUMMARY CONVICTION. See MANDAMUS, 1.

SURVEYOR. See HIGHWAYS, 1, 2.

WARRANT OF DISTRESS. See RATING, 4.

ACCOUNT.-1. Agent and principal. — An account decreed against a land agent for twenty-seven years previous to the filing of the bill under the circumstances, but refused as to certain gratuities received from tenants by the agent with the knowledge of his principal, which were charged to be extortionate, but by the exorbitance of which the principal was not proved to have been a loser, except so far as they were taken as fines. Palmer v. Browne, Beat. 540.

2. Pleading-Infant-Misjoinder.-A., on behalf of herself and her infant children, filed a bill against B., who was tenant in common with her husband C., alleging that on his death B. entered into receipt of the entire rents, claiming the whole, and kept possession of the title deeds, for want of which the plaintiffs could not proceed at law; and praying that they might be put in possession of C.'s moiety, and an account of the rents of it since his death, and for the title deeds. A. did not make affidavit that the deeds were not in her possession: Held, that such affidavit is not necessary in a case where the plaintiffs have a right to sue in equity aliunde, and that a demurrer for want of it was bad in substance; that the demurrer not stating specifically the parts of the statement or relief to which it applied, was bad in form; that though the bill could not be sustained for an account between tenants in common, yet that the infant plaintiffs were entitled to such account against the defendant; and that the mother being co-plaintiff was no misjoinder. M'Carthy v. Hatch, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 206.

And see TENANT IN COMMON.

ACTION. See TITHES.

ADMIRALTY. See SHIP.

ADMINISTRATION. See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR. PLEADING, 1.

ADMISSION OF ASSETS. See EXECUTOR AND ADMINISTRATOR, 2, 3.

ADMISSION OF TITLE. See RECEIVER, 5.

AFFIDAVIT. See FORMA PAUPERIS. SOLICITOR, 3.