1825. opinion that this rule ought to be discharged. It is much to be lamented that for the sake of ten shillings, a party should go on at so great an expense of litigation, for whatever might be the result, it must be considerable to The JUSTICES himself even if he succeeded. HOLROYD, J. and LITTLEDALE, J. concurred (a). Rule discharged. (a) Bayley, J. was absent. The KING v. of HUNTING DONSHIRE. Friday, February 11th. against the mayor of a The KING v. The Mayor and Corporation of FOWEY. CARTER moved for an attachment against the defend- Attachment auts for not making a return to a peremptory mandamus. ordered By the exigency of the writ they were required to make a return within six days, which they had not done. The corporation for not making mandamus had been served on the town clerk, but not a return to a personally on the defendants, and there was a doubt in peremptory the crown office whether an attachment would lie without personal service of the mandamus. Now in the case of sheriff there is no personal service of the body rule to found a proceeding by attachment. The sheriff is a personal serpublic officer, and the defendants stand in the same situ- vice thereof. ation. In principle therefore there is no reason why the attachment should not lie in this case without personal service. a LITTLEDALE, J. (b)-It seems reasonable that an attachment should go. If the defendants wanted farther time to make their return, they ought to have applied to the Court for that purpose. Let the attachment go. (b) The only Judge in Court. Rule granted. mandamus within the time pre scribed by the writ, though there was no END OF HILARY TERM. INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. ABATEMENT. See PLEADING, 1, 2, 3. ACCOUNTS. See CHURCHWardens, 1. INCLO- - vision of the former statute, but to APPEAL. SURE ACT, 2.-OVERSEERS, 1, 2. See CERTIORARI, 3.—EVIDENCE, 3.- 4.-POOR, 1.-SESSIONS, 3, 4. AFFIDAVIT. See EVIDENCE, 1.-JUSTICES, 3. 7. ALDERMAN. See JUSTICES, 5. ALEHOUSES. See JUSTICES, 2.-MANDAMUS, 3, 7. was not to repeal the general pro- BAKERS. See CERTIORARI, 1. BASTARD. See SETTLEMENT, 16. BASTARDY. See SESSIONS, 7. BOROUGH. See ALEHOUSES.-JUSTICES, 2. 5.MANDAMUS, 4. 6. 8. BREAD. See CERTIORARI, 1. BRIDGES. See INDICTMENT, 1. BYE LAW. See MANDAMUs, 6. CARRIER. The driver of a stage van, travelling to and from London and York, is a common carrier within the meaning of the 3 Car. 1. c. 1. and subject to the penalties thereof, for travelling on Sunday. Rex v. Middleton, 5 G. 4. Page 412 CERTIFICATE. See CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS, 2. 4. CERTIORARI. See CARRIER.-INCLOSURE ACT, 2. 1. The 50 G. 3. c. 73., reciting 31 G. 2. c. 29., 3 G. 3. c. 6. and 13 and by s. 5. all powers given by the previous statutes upon the same subject are incorporated, except those altered by that statute. The 31 G. 2. c. 29. ss. 36 and 37., respectively take away the writ of certiorari, and give an appeal to the sessions: Held, that 50 G. 3. c. 73. s. 5. incorporates those sections, and that on a conviction under the latter statute, the certiorari is taken away, and an appeal given. Rex v. The Mayor of Liverpool, 4 G. 4. Page 4 2. Certiorari refused to move an indictment for murder from Yorkshire, in order to a trial at bar, or in another county, on the ground that the prisoners (who had pleaded to the indictment), could not have a fair and impartial trial in the former county. Rex v. Mead, 4 G. 66 4. 3. Certiorari does not lie to remove the appointment of a surveyor under the general highway act, 13 G. 3. c. 78. s. 80.; the remedy to the party aggrieved by the appointment, is by appeal to the quarter sessions. Rex v. The Justices of St. Albans, 5 and 6 G. 4. 521 4. The 30 G. 2. c. 24. s. 20. takes away the writ of certiorari, but where counts on that statute were joined with counts for a conspiracy at common law to obtain goods by false pretences: Held, that the certiorari was not taken away. Rex v. Saunders, 5 and 6 G. 4. 591 CHURCHWARDENS. See CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS. MANDAMUS, 13.-POOR RATE, 4. CHURCHWARDENS AND OVERSEERS. G. 3. c. 62., makes certain amend- See OVERSEERS, 4.-Poor, 1.—POOR ments in the laws then in force respecting the trade of bakers, &c. 1. RATE, 2. 4. In the parish of B., consisting of the township of B. and several hamlets, two churchwardens were appointed by the township, and two by the rest of the parish, who made separate rates for their own divisions respectively: Held, that the acting churchwardens for the township might maintain assumpsit against their predecessors for a balance remaining in their hands, without joining the other churchwardens as plaintiffs or defendants, and without proving that their appointment was strictly legal. Astle v. Thomas, 4 G. 4. Page 129 2. Where a parish certificate was granted by two persons who described themselves on the face of it to be, "the only churchwarden and the only overseer of the poor of the parish": Held, after a lapse of 63 years, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the court would intend, first, that the parish had by custom but one churchwarden; and certificate was granted, but one CONDITIONAL HIRING.⠀ CONNECTED HIRING AND SERVICE. See SETTLEMENT, 18. CONVICTION. second, that there had been origi- See CARRIER. CERTIORARI, 1. nally two overseers, but that one had died, and consequently that the certificate was valid, as having been granted by a majority of the existing body of overseers, within the meaning of the certificate act, 1. 8 and 9 W. 3. c. 30. Rex v. The inhabitants of Catesby, 5 G. 4. 278 3. Where a parish is incorporated with others for the maintenance of its 4. 4. Where a parish certificate, 35 years old, was granted by two persons, who described themselves on the face of it to be "the major part of the churchwarden and overseer," and there was evidence, on one side, that both before and ever since the HAWKERS AND PEDLARS, 1, 2, 3.- - The costs to be paid by offenders under the stage coach act, 50 G. 3. c. 48. must be ascertained by the conviction, or it is bad. Rex v. Payne, 4 and 5 G. 4. 169 A conviction on the 5 Ann, c. 14. s. 2. against a common carrier, for having, in that capacity, game in his possession, need not negative the defendant's qualification to kill game; neither is it necessary to aver that he has the game in his possession " knowingly." Rex v. Marsh, 5 G. 4. 182 3. Where a magistrate committed a party to prison for an alleged offence against one statute, and afterwards drew up a conviction for a different offence from that stated in the commitment: Held, that the convic |