The Queen against The Justices of Cheshire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1838 |
| Date | 15 November 1838 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 889
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
the queen against the justices of cheshire. Thursday, November 15th, 1838. On appeal against an order of removal, the respondents, at sessions, objected to the statement of grounds, and the Court held the statement bad. The respondents demanded to have the order confirmed, but the sessions quashed it for a defect in the order. On motion for a certiorari to bring up the order of sessions, founded upon affidavit of the above facts : Held, that the facts did not shew want of jurisdiction in the sessions ; and that this Court, therefore, would not notice objections not appearing on the face of the order. Especially as the respondents, after the statement of grounds had been held insufficient, had asked for a confirmation of the removal. Although the affidavits shewed that the objection to the order of removal was supported by no proof except an assertion, made at the hearing, by a magistrate on the Bench. Evans bad obtained a rule, in Trinity term, 1837, calling upon the defendants to shew cause why a certiorari should not issue, to remove into this Court all orders made by them at the Nether Knutsford Sessions of March 1837, for quashing an order whereby William Jepson was removed from the township of Yeardsley cum Whaley, in Cheshire, to the parish or township of Chapel-en-le-Frith, otherwise called Combs Edge, in Derbyshire, and all proceedings relating thereto. The affidavits on which the rule was obtained stated the following facts. The (a) Lord Denman C.J., Littledale, Patteson, and Williams Js. (b) See the next case. 890 THE QOEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF CHESHIRE 8 AD. A E. 399. order of removal was appealed against by Chapel-en-le-Frith, and the appeal [399] came on for hearing at the March Sessions, 1837. The appellants, being called upon so to do, put in the notice and statement of grounds of appeal, when it appeared that the latter was given in the name of " the churchwarden and overseer of the poor of the township, district, or place, known by the name of Combs Edge, and sometimes called .Chapel-en-le-Frith." The respondents thereupon objected that the statement of grounds of appeal was invalid for not being signed by two overseers of Combs Edge; and the Court held that it was so. One of the justices then looked at the order of removal, which was to remove to "the parish, township, or place, of Chapel-en-le-Frith;" and he stated that there was no township of Chapel-en-le-Frith, bufc that the parish of Chapel-en-le-Frith was divided into three townships, one of which was Combs Edge, each maintaining its own poor. The Court thereupon decided that the order was misdirected, and a nullity, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rotherham
...No case is sent up, and the examinations cannot be gone into ; Begina v. Abergele (8 A. & E. 394), Begina v. Justices of Cheshire (8 A. & E. 398). [Coleridge J. Want of jurisdiction might be shewn otherwise than by the contents of the order.] The sessions, by the lodging of the appeal, had ......
-
Clarke
...the validity of the return had been decided. See p. 631, post. 2Q-B.8S9. IN THE MATTER OF CLARKE 247 Kegina v. The Justices of Cheshire (8 A. & E. 398), Rex v. The Justices of Cambridgeshire (4 A. & E. Ill, 122). The same rules apply whether the order be made by a justice of the peace or by......
-
The Queen against The Justices of The West Riding of Yorkshire. ( Bastow.)
...but they will not do so where the justices have professed to hear, and made a general adjudication ; Rex v. The Justices of Cheshire (8 A. & E. 398), Sex v. Frieston (5 B. & Ad. 597), Rex v. The Justices of Carnarvon (4 B. & Aid. 86), Rex [630] v. The Licensing Magistrates oj the Ward of Fa......
-
The Queen against The Justices of Lancashire
...clearly assumes the appeal to be in existence independently of the notice. The question is, as in Begina v. The Justices of Cheshire (8 A. & E. 398), whether the Sessions had jurisdiction to receive the appeal at all; if they had, their power to adjourn is unquestionable; Rex v. The Justice......