The Queen against The Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire. (Longwood against Halifax.)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 1842 |
| Date | 28 January 1842 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 275
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
[705] the queen against the justices op the west riding of yorkshire. ( longwood against halifax.) Friday, January 28th, 1842. A parish served with notice of appeal against an order of removal may, if they find the grounds of appeal unanswerable, procure a supersecleas of the order, and obtain a new one; and this, although the order of removal has been executed before the supersedeas is applied for; if they give proper notice to the appellant parish, and pay, or make arrangements with that parish for paying, all expences occasioned to them by the removal. And, after such supersedeas and notice, and satisfaction in respect of costs if any, the sessions ought not to enter the appeal. Qutere whether the sessions have a right to establish as a rule of practice that no appeal against an order of removal shall be heard unless the original order be filed. Per Coleridge J., they have not. But, where an order of removal had been properly superseded (as above), and the sessions nevertheless allowed the appeal to be entered, and decided it in favour of the appellants, but afterwards (during the same session) dismissed the appeal and struck the entry of it off the file because the original order had not been filed according to their rule of practice : Held (on motion for a mandamus to enter and hear the appeal) that the ultimate order of the justices was right in itself, and that this Court would not enquire on which ground they had acted. In Michaelmas term (November 8th) 1841, a rule nisi was obtained for a mandamus calling on the justices of the West Riding to enter, as of the last Midsummer Sessions for the said riding, the appeal of the churchwardens and overseers of the township of Longwood, in the said riding, against an order of justices for the removal of Joseph Fox and his wife and child from the township of Halifax in the same riding to the said township of Longwood ; and to enter continuances and hear the appeal. The following facts appeared on affidavit. The order was executed by removal of the paupers on or about June 12th, 1841, and after the expiration of twenty one days from the service of copies of the order and examination, and notice of chargeability. On June 15th, 1841 (after the removal), Longwood gave notice of appeal to the then next sessions. One ground of appeal was, that the order was bad, inasmuch as the examination contained only hearsay evidence. The officers of Halifax, being advised that their order was bad on this ground, applied to the removing justices to supersede it; [706] which they did by (a) See Rex v. Haksworth, 3 B. & Ad. 717. 276 THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OP THE WEST RIDING 8 Q. B. 707. order of June 21st (a), vacating the order of removal, and requiring the officers of Halifax to take back the paupers: and they were received back accordingly. The affidavits in support of the rule stated that no notice of abandonment of the order had been served upon the officers of Longwood; but it appeared by the affidavits in opposition that the supersedeas had been sent to them on June 22d, and received; and that the clerk to the respondents' attorneys, who delivered the aupersedeas at the house of one of the churchwardens of Longwood, stated on the same day (June 22d), to * guardian of the poor of Longwood, that he had so done, and that any expenses of maintenance incurred by the township of Longwood would be allowed them in account, and the paupers taken back; which arrangement the [707] guardian appeared to understand and to be quite satisfied with. The appeal was entered; and at the sessions, holden at Bradford on June 30th, counsel moved, on behalf of the appellants, that the order of removal might be quashed for insufficiency of the examination. The attorney's clerk who acted for the respondents had come to the sessions with the intention of instructing counsel to oppose the entry of the appeal, and, as he swore, was surprised to find, an the making of the said application, that the appeal had been entered. He then instructed counsel, who opposed the application on the ground that the removing justices had superseded the order of removal, subsequently, indeed, to its execution and the serving of notice of appeal, but several days before the sessions ; that the order had been superseded in consequence of the decision of this Court in Eegina v. Ecclesall Bierlow (11 A. & E. 607), and, being superseded, was as if it had never existed; that the sessions had no jurisdiction to permit an appeal to be entered against an order which was no longer in existence; and that they ought to strike out the entry of appeal. The sessions, after argument on both sides, held that they had jurisdiction to permit the entry, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial