progress of something, which, when completed, would be felony, and with intent to commit a felony. Reg. v. Greenwood, 2 C. & K. 339. SEALING. See ORDER, 1. SECONDARY EVIDENCE. See APPRENTICESHIP. SENDING DOCUMENTS. See REMOVAL, 7. SENTENCE. See EVIDENCE, 2. SEPARATE TENEMENT. See REMOVAL, 3. SEPARATION OF MOTHER AND CHILD. MOVAL, 15. SERVANT. See LARCENY, 4. SERVICE. See CERTIORARI. ORDER, 3. SESSIONS. See ORDER, 3. See ORDER, 3. REMOVAL. See RE SETTLEMENT.-1. Evidence-Prior order quashed on appeal -Grounds of quashing.-The sessions, on appeal, quashed an order of removal from P. to L., founded on examinations which stated a settlement by renting and occupying a house in L. for one year, at 221. a year, and being assessed to the poor rate in L., which the party had paid as the occupier of the said house during his occupation. The ground of appeal was, that the examination was defective, as not stating in what year or years the party rented and occupied, or that the house was rented by him in L., or occupied under a yearly hiring, and the rent to the amount of 10l. actually paid for one whole year at the least, or that such house was actually occupied under a yearly hiring by him, and the rent, &c. paid by him for the same, or that he had been assessed to the poor rate and paid the same in respect of such house for one year. The order of sessions stated the order of removal to be quashed on the ground of the examination disclosing no settlement on the face thereof, and the appellants having given notice thereof in their grounds of appeal. The pauper being removed again from P. to L., it was stated and relied upon as a ground of appeal, that the examinations did not show any settlement acquired since the above order of sessions, and, in fact, no new settlement appeared. The sessions, however, confirmed the new order of removal, subject to a case stating all the circumstances of the former decision, and submitting, as the question for this court, whether or not the former order of sessions was conclusive. Held, that this court, being enabled by the case stated to see that the former order of sessions had disposed of the substantial question, might pronounce that order conclusive, though the sessions, by their last order, had decided the contrary; and the latter order was quashed. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Mary, Lambeth, 7 Q. B. 587. 2. Evidence-Prior order quashed for insufficiency of examinations. Appellants against an order of removal objected in their grounds of appeal, that the examination did not properly show the residence necessary to acquiring a settlement, and that other specified D2 facts were insufficiently alleged; they also denied the settlement at the sessions: this order was, on motion of the said respondents, set aside for insufficiency of examination. Afterwards the respondents again removed the paupers to the appellant township on an examination disclosing substantially the same grounds as before: Held, on appeal against the second order of removal, that the first order of sessions was conclusive between the parties on the point of settlement. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Ellel, 7'Q. B. 593. 3. Evidence Prior order unappealed against. - An order of removal was made on an examination, which showed that the pauper never acquired a settlement for himself, but was emancipated in 1823; that his father was apprentice in L. in 1790, and was removed to L. under an order of removal in 1838, against which L. had not appealed, but had subsequently maintained the father; the examinations did not set forth the circumstances of the apprenticeship so as to prove that the father acquired a settlement after the apprentice ship: Held, that the order unappealed against for the removal of the father was conclusive evidence of the settlement of the son. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Brighthelmstone, 7 Q. B. 549. 4. Presumption of emancipation. A pauper was removed to parish A. on examinations, which showed that he had gained no settlement in his own right, and that when the pauper was twentyseven years old his father had received relief from parish A. while resident elsewhere: Held sufficient, for that emancipation was not to be presumed, although it was not stated that the pauper, at the time in question, was resident with his father or formed part of his family. Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Lilleshall, 7 Q. B. 158. And see REMOVAL. SHAREHOLDER. See RATING, 2. SIGNATURE. See CORONER, 1. ORDER, 2. SUBPOENA. 1. Subpoena duces tecum from crown office to attend justices on application for order of removal-Privilege of parish officer producing documents to decline submitting them to examination.-On an application before magistrates in petty sessions for an order to remove a pauper to parish A., where it is sought to show a settlement by rating, a subpoena ad testificandum and a subpœna duces tecum may issue from the crown office to the parish officer of A., commanding him to attend the examination at petty sessions, give evidence, and produce the parish rate-books; and if he disobeys, this court will grant an attachment. Whether, on attending with the books, he is bound to submit them to examination, quære. Reg. v. Greenaway, Reg. v. Carey, 7 Q. B. 126. 2. Summons of justice-Production of documents before removing justices how to be enforced.-The summons of a justice, requiring a party possessed of documents to attend as a witness and produce such documents on the hearing of an application for an order of removal, is not equivalent to a subpoena duces tecum; and secondary evidence is not admissible on proof that such summons has been served and disobeyed. So held, where the person served was an overseer of the parish, to which it was proposed to remove, and the summons (headed "Summons to witness") was addressed to the overseers, requiring them to produce the rate-books. Reg. v. Orton, 7 Q. B. 120. SURETIES. See BENCH WARRANT. TAKING. See POST OFFICE, 2. See ORDER, 3. THREATENING LETTER.-Indictment.-An indictment on the stat. 4 Geo. 4, c. 54, s. 3, charged that the prisoner sent a letter to J. L., threatening to burn the house of J. R.: Held bad, as the threat must be to the owner of the property; and that if the letter was sent to J. L., with intent that it should reach J. R., and did reach him, it should have been charged in the indictment as sent to J. R. Reg. v. Jones, 2 C. & K. 398. TREASURER OF GUARDIANS. See EMBEZZLEMENT, 2. UNDERTAKING FOR PAYMENT OF MONEY. See FORGERY, 3. UTTERING. See FORGERY, 4, 5. VENUE.-Action against a magistrate.-An action against a magistrate for an act done by virtue of his office is a local action; and therefore, if (since the division of the county of Lancaster, by virtue of the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 71, s. 4) the venue in such action be laid in the southern division of that county, but it appeas that the cause of action arose in the northern division, the defendant will be entitled to a verdict thereof under the 21 Jac. 1, c. 12, s. 5. Atkinson v. Hornby, 2 C. & K. 335. And see BANKRUPT. JURISDICTION. REMOVAL, 13. WITNESS.-Co-indictee, who has pleaded guilty.-A., B. and C., were jointly indicted. A. and B. for stealing, and C. for receiving it, scienter, &c. A. and C. pleaded not guilty, and B. pleaded guilty, and the trial proceeded against A. and C., no judgment having been pronounced against B.: Held, that B. was a competent witness for the prosecution on the trial of A. and C. Reg. v. Hinks, 2 C. & K. 462. -- WORSTED ACT. 1. Conviction under Worsted Act, 17 Geo. 3, c. 56.-Under sects. 10 and 14 of stat. 17 Geo. 3, c. 56 (for preventing frauds &c. by persons employed in the woollen and other manufactures) a party may be convicted of having in his possession materials used in such manufactures, and suspected to be purloined or embezzled, and of not accounting for the possession, although such goods have not been found concealed in his dwellinghouse, outhouse, &c., or in the execution of a search warrant granted under sect. 10; the offence consisting in the possession itself, not accounted for as the statute requires. Reg. v. Wilcock, 7 Q. B. 317. 2. Distribution of penalties-Statute reciting title of former act with a variance.--Stat. 58 Geo. 3, c. 57, describes by their titles and dates several acts relating to persons employed in the woollen and other manufactures, which acts it in part repeals. Among these is an act stated to have been passed in 13 Geo. 3, but agreeing in title with statute 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, and with no act passed in 13 Geo. 3: Held, that this act might be identified by the title with the act recited, and that the legislature must be deemed to have mistaken the date, and, therefore, that the distribution of penalties under statnte 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 14, is now regulated by statute 58 Geo. 3, c. 51, s. 3. S. C. ib. 3. Effect of statute 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, s. 2, where prior act gives a form of conviction.-Statute 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, s. 10, empowers two justices on complaint to cause the party charged to be brought be fore" two justices," who are not required to be the same two; and enacts that if such party shall not give a satisfactory account to such justices, he shall be convicted, &c.: Held, that the conviction in such case must state, as required by the subsequent act, 3 Geo. 4, c. 23, s. 2, that the complaint was made to different justices from those who determined it, although statute 17 Geo. 3, c. 56, gives a general form of conviction, not requiring any particular statement as to the justices who first heard or who determined the complaint; and a conviction under this act was quashed for omitting such statement. S. C. ib. PRIVY COUNCIL. Containing Cases in 4 Moore, Part 3. APPEAL.—1. Allowance - Special grounds - Jamaica. -Appeal allowed under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 69, direct from the Court of Assize of the island of Jamaica to her Majesty in Council, without bringing a writ of error in the Court of Errors, the intermediate court in the island. Such appeal is not of course, but requires special grounds to be shown to warrant the application. In re Barnett, 4 M. 453. 2. Allowance · Special Petition - Divorce Mauritius. - The Charter of Justice of the Mauritius gives no right of appeal to the Queen in Council from a sentence of divorce. But the crown can, upon special petition for that purpose, grant such leave. Appeal by the Cour d'Appel in the Mauritius from a sentence à vinculo matrimonii, upon petition of respondent, discharged as incompetent. But on special petition leave to appeal granted by the Judicial Committee upon terms of the appellant's lodging his printed case within a given time, or the appeal to stand dismissed. D'Orliac v. D'Orliac, 4 M. 374. 3. Ground of appeal-Rejection of witness--Grievance-Contempt.--The rejection of a witness in the course of the hearing of a cause in the Ecclesiastical Court, on the ground of interest, is not of itself an appealable grievance, the hearing being one continuous act, and an appeal being competent, after sentence, from any compartment of the cause. A party in a cause in the Ecclesiastical Court, in consequence of the rejection by the court of a material witness, withdrew himself from the further contest of the cause; the judge decreed the cause on pain of his contumacy. Held, by the Judicial Committee, that such withdrawal was not contumacious, so as to preclude him from his right of appeal from his sentence. Handley v. Edwards, 4 M. 407. ATTACHMENT. See SLAVE TRADE ACT. CAPTORS. See SLAVE TRADE ACT. CHURCHWARDENS.-Borrowing money on credit of church rates-For what purposes.-By the statute 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, s. 14, it is enacted that it shall be lawful for the churchwardens of any parish, with the consent of the vestry, to raise and borrow money upon |