thereof, and to appoint receivers, &c. on condition that the subscribers should make certain annual and other payments, keep the bridge in repair, pay salaries, &c., and should, in the last place, yearly for ever share all the residue of the tolls, &c. among the subscribers for the time being, and their respective heirs and assigns, proportionably to their several shares and interests as tenants in common, and not as joint tenants. Proviso, that if the trustees, their heirs and assigns, should adjudge that the subscribers had made default in the payments, &c. they should not, during such default, be permitted to receive or solely manage the tolls, but the trustees should receive and manage the same, and do whatever the subscribers were required to do. The subscribers entered into receipt of the tolls, which were taken in part at a toll-house at one end of the bridge, in the parish of Putney. H. C. was proprietor of a small share, and was clerk to the subscribers, but was not appointed to represent them in any other way, nor was he an inhabitant of Putney. In a poor rate for that parish he and many other persons were assessed together as owners and occupiers of part of the bridge, which was situate in Putney. H. C. did not appeal, and being summoned before a justice of one of the metropolitan police courts, disputed his liability, and contended that some persons were improperly inserted in the assess ment, and (as that fact was) that some proprietors were omitted, the justice declined issuing a distress warrant. This court granted a mandamus, calling upon the justice to issue such warrant: Held, by Lord Denman, C. J., and Patteson, J., that H. C. might be distrained upon for the rate, and must obtain contributions as he could from the other subscribers. By Williams and Wightman, Js., that H. C. was at all events liable for some portion of the rate, and not having appealed, could not now contend that he was rated for too much, or that other persons were improperly joined with him as subscribers, or omitted. Reg. v. Paynter, 7 Q. B. 255. 3. Notice of rate and allowance.In the written notice of a rate, published by the parish officers and proved before the justice, it was stated that the rate had been allowed" by one of her majesty's jus tices of the peace, acting within the metropolitan district, pursuant to the statute," &c.: Held, that if this did not sufficiently show that the magistrate was one of those authorized by stat. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 71, s. 14, to perform the functions of two justices, the notice of allowance was not therefore void, stat. 17 Geo. 2, c. 3, s. 1, requiring publication of the rate only, and not of the allowance. S. C. ib. RECITAL OF STATUTE. See WORSTED ACT, 2. RECORD.- Of indictment-Description of grand jurors.--A record of conviction at the assizes, beginning, Yorkshire, to wit, and reciting a commission to justices to hear and determine, and deliver the gaol there, and to inquire by the oaths of good and lawful men, within the said county of York, set forth an indictment found by A. B., C. D., &c., grand jurors, giving to each, except in one in stance, the addition of his residence, but not stating them to be good and lawful men within the county of York, nor making any mention of the county. On writ of error, assigning as a ground that the indictment did not appear to have been found by good and lawful men of the county, semble, per Patteson, J., that the objection was fatal. Whitehead v. The Queen, 7 Q. B. 582. RELIEF.-Order for relief out of workhouse-Summons to show cause.-An order of justices, under stat. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 27, for relieving a pauper elsewhere than in the workhouse, cannot be made without summoning the parties who will be burdened by such order to show cause why it should not be made. Where such relief is to be given in a parish forming part of a union, quære, whether the order should be address. d to the overseers or to the guardians. Quære, also, whether, in the case of such a parish, the order sufficiently shows jurisdiction, under sect. 27, if the justices only describe themselves as two of her majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the county of A., and usually acting at B. within the district of the C. poor law union, in which the parish lies in the said county. Reg. v. The Guardians of the Poor of the Totnes Union, 7 Q. B. 690. REMOVAL.-1. Appeal against order-Entry of jurisdiction of sessions-When parish is aggrieved― Affidavits on information and belief.-Affidavits showed that an order of removal was made and suspended on 29th July, and that the suspension had never been taken off; that the order was served on the appellants on 7th August, that the appellants on 14th October served on respondents a notice, dated 6th September, stating the intention of appellants, at the next sessions, to enter and try an appeal against the order of removal, in which notice was incorporated a statement of grounds of appeal; that by the practice of the sessions eight days' notice of trial was required; that the next quarter sessions were held 17th October; that no appeal was then prosecuted, or entered and respited, as one of the deponents, respondent's attorney, had been informed and verily believed; that the respondents did not attend at the October sessions, nor at the following Epiphany sessions, and heard nothing more of the appeal until 15th February following, when a document, purporting to be a copy of an order, made on appeal at the Epiphany sessions held on 4th January, for quashing the order of removal, was sent to respondents by the vestry clerk of the appellant parish. A rule for quashing the order of sessions having been obtained on these affidavits, and no affidavits being filed in answer: Held, that the October sessions were the next practicable sessions after the order of removal, and that, if the appeal was not entered and respited at those sessions, the next Epiphany sessions had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Held, also, by Lord Denman, C. J, Williams and Wightman, Js., that the statement of the respondent's attorney in the negative, "as he had been informed and believed," remaining unanswered by the opposite party showed sufficiently that the appeal had not been entered and respited at the October sessions; dubitante Patteson, J. Held, also, that the respondents were aggrieved (within the provision of stat. 13 & 14 Car. 2, c. 12, s. 2,) by the order of sessions, and that this court was bound to interfere on their behalf. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Sevenoaks, 7 Q. B. 136. 2. Appeal, grounds of Emancipation. - Grounds of appeal against an order of removal stated a settlement acquired by the pauper's grandfather, and that after the acquisition of that settlement the father was an emancipated member of the grandfather's family, and that neither the pauper nor his father had gained any settlement in their own right: Held sufficient, without enumerating and negativing the modes in which the pauper's father might have been emancipated. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Rothwell, 7 Q. B. 574. 3. Appeal against order, grounds of Separate and distinct tenement, under stat. 6 Geo. 4, c. 57.-A statement of grounds of appeal, against an order of removal, alleging a settlement acquired by paying parochial rates, for a tenement consisting of houses, since the passing of 6 Geo. 4, c. 57, must aver that the tenement was "separate and distinct."-Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Ripon, 7 Q. B. 225. 4. Chargeability, notice of.-In a notice of chargeability the words "has become chargeable" are equivalent to "is chargeable"; per Lord Denman, C. J. Reg. v. Inhabitants of Stockton, 7 Q. B. 520. 5. Chargeability, statement of. The pauper, in her examination, stated, "I am unable to maintain myself, and am now residing in, and receiving relief from, and am actually chargeable to" the appellant parish: Held, sufficient evidence of chargeability. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Great Bolton, 7 Q. B. 387. 6. Same. That paupers are receiving relief from, and actually chargeable to, a township which they inhabit is a sufficient averment of chargeability.Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Totley, 7 Q. B. 596. of 7. Documents before removing justices-Sending copies to ap pellants. On application to justices for an order of removal the settlement alleged was an interest in land acquired by the pauper as administrator. The examination stated this interest, and the grant the letters of administration, with names and dates; and together with the examination there were sent to the appellant parish copies of letters of administration corresponding in names and dates with the letters described in the examination, but the examination did not expressly show that any letters of administration were produced before the justices, nor was any notice given to the appellants of their having been produced: Held, that the examinations were not, on that ground, insufficient; for it must be assumed that the letters sent to the appellant parish were before the justices. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Anne, Westminster, 7 Q. B. 245. 8. Examinations in support of order, certainty in-"In or about."-In an examination touching the settlement of a bastard child (not shown to have gained any settlement since the birth), a statement that such child was born "in or about 1833" is not sufficiently precise; since under s. 71 of stat. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c 76, it may be material that the birth should have taken place before August 14, 1834; and the words "in or about" do not exclude the supposition that the child may have been born later. Reg. v. St. Paul, Covent Garden, 7 Q. B. 232. 9. Examination, certainty in Jurisdiction of sessions. - An examination touching settlement stated a marriage to have taken place in the church of B. Among the grounds of appeal it was alleged that the examination was defective because there were two churches of B., and this appearing in evidence to be so, the sessions refused to hear the respondents, but stated the facts for the opinion of this court, not submitting any particular question. Order affirmed, the decision being on a point of which the sessions were the sole judges. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Bakewell, 7 Q. B. 601. 10. Examinations, certainty in-Residence-Settlement by renting tenement Description of tenement - Parochial place. -- Pauper was removed on examinations showing a maiden settlement of his mother by residence, while unemancipated, with her father, who rented a tenement, No. 3, Hot Bath Street, in the parish of St. James, Bath. They further stated that the pauper's father took a tenement, being No. 8, Hot Bath Street, aforesaid, of the yearly value of 107., and was legally settled upon, occupied and resided in, the same from March, 1819, for one year and a half: Held, that Hot Bath Street aforesaid could not be taken to mean Hot Bath Street in the parish of St. James, and, therefore, that the father's settlement was not properly ascertained; that the respondents could not avail themselves of the mother's settlement, because it appeared that the father had a settlement which ought to have been inquired into; and that the order was properly quashed at sessions on these defects in the examinations pointed out on grounds of appeal. The court will presume that a place in England is parochial if nothing to the contrary appears. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Margaret, Westminster, 7 Q. B. 569. 11. Examinations-Derivative settlement-Statement of legitimacy. Paupers were removed to the settlement of G. B., as their father, on an examination, stating that G. B. died on May 1st, 1843, and his wife the previous day, leaving eight children, some of whom were the paupers, and that the said children were residing with their said parents, G. B. and his said wife, until their deaths as aforesaid. On appeal, and objection taken that the examination did not show that the paupers were legitimate, and therefore did not warrant the order of removal, the sessions decided in favour of the appeal, subject to the opinion of the court on the question whether or not the objection was fatal: Held, that the legitimacy appeared sufficiently to warrant the order of removal. Order of sessions quashed. Semble, per Lord Denman, C. J., that if the question submitted had been whether or not the examination gave the appellants sufficient materials for inquiry, this court would not have interfered with the decision at sessions. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Totley, 7 Q. B. 596. 12. Order-Complaint-" Coming to inhabit"-Certiorari. -An order of removal, made 18th of January, purported to be founded VOL. VII. NO XII. DIG. D upon a complaint that the paupers have lately intruded and come into the said parish of G., and have become actually chargeable to the same, and directed them to be removed to B. The first practicable sessions for an appeal were held on the 11th April, and were adjourned to 9th May. No appeal was entered at the sessions in April, but, according to the practice of that court, an appeal entered at the adjourned sitting in May would be in time. The overseers of B. moved for a certiorari on 25th April. Held, that, although the time for appealing had not expired, the overseers of B. might obtain a certiorari, and the order was bad as being founded on a complaint which did not sufficiently allege that the paupers had come to inhabit in G. Reg. v. Willats, 7 Q. B. 516. 13. Order-Marginal venue-" In and for"-Complaint-Jurisdiction.-An order of removal having the marginal venue borough of K., and commencing upon the complaint of the churchwardens, &c. unto us G. C. and T. F., being two of her majesty's justices of the peace for the said borough of K., does not sufficiently show that the justices heard the complaint within the jurisdiction. The complaint should appear to have been heard by justices in and for, &c. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Stockton, 7 Q. B. 520. 14. Removal after previous order quashed, subject to a caseFresh chargeability.-A pauper was removed, and copies of the order, examinations, &c. sent to the parish to which she was removed; but the copy of the order of removal did not contain the signatures of the removing justices. On this objection, the order of removal was quashed on appeal, subject to a case. The respondents, however, took no step to bring the case up. Afterwards the pauper became again chargeable, having obtained no fresh settlement. Held, that she might (even before the time for obtaining a certiorari to bring up the order of sessions expired) be removed to the same parish as before; for that, 1, the former order was not conclusive as to the merits; and, 2, not proceeding with the case granted on the first appeal did not preclude her removal on a new chargeability. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Great Bolton, 7 Q. B. 387. 15. Separation of mother and child.-If a female pauper and her child, within the age of nurture, be removed by order of justices, quære whether such order can be enforced if the notice of chargeability does not mention the child as chargeable, and in reciting the order made for removal of the mother does not show that the child is therein named. Semble, per Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson and Coleridge, Js., that although the order named the mother only, the parish to which the removal is made must nevertheless receive the child if within the age of nurture and brought with the mother. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Stockton, 7 Q. B. 520. And see SETTLEMENT, passim. ROBBERY.-Assault.-If, on the trial of an indictment for a robbery with violence, the robbery be not proved, the prisoner cannot be found guilty of the assault only (under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 11), unless it appear that such assault was committed in the |