« AnteriorContinua »
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
THE POOR LAWS,
POINTS IN CRIMINAL LAW,
AND OTHER SUBJECTS
CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH
The Duties and Office of Magistrates :
COMMENCING WITH MICHAELMAS TERM, 11 VICTORIÆ.
REPORTED PRINCIPALLY BY
PHILIP BOCKETT BARLOW, Esq., HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq.,
PORMING PART OF
THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS.
REPORTS OF CASES
CONNECTED WITH THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES :
MICHAELMAS TERM, 11 VICTORIÆ.
An order of removal from P. to L. was founded on examinations, which stated that the pauper rented a tenement of above 101. for a year, and paid rent during his tenancy. On appeal, the Sessions confirmed this order, subject to a case on the point, whether the examinations were defective for not shewing that “the” rent was paid by the pauper. The case directed that if this Court should consider the objection to the examinations fatal, the order was to be quashed "for de ficiency of the examination" whereon it was founded. The Court of Queen's Bench, after argument, quashed the order of Sessions and order of removal.
On appeal against a subsequent order removing the same pauper from P. to L. upon the same settlement, the appellants objected that the respondents were estopped by the decision on the former case, ( which was set out in the examinations,) and rested their objection upon production and proof of a copy of the record in the Crown Office, shewing that the former order had been quashed. The respondents did not offer any
NEW SERIES, XVII.-Mag. Cas.
evidence to shew that the judgment did not proceed on the point of settlement. The Sessions held that the respondents were not estopped.
The appellants then tendered evidence to shew that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench proceeded on the ground that the former examinations were insufficient in the point of shewing a settlement, which the Sessions held to be inadmissible ( subject to the opinion of this Court); but it being admitted, that if this evidence could be received, the decision did proceed on that ground, they further asked, whether such a decision was conclusive :-Held, first, that the quashing of the prior order "for defici. ency of the examinations" was equivalent to a general quashing, and that the respondents were not estopped by the former judgment, either party being at liberty to shew the grounds on which it proceeded.
Secondly, that evidence of the grounds of the decision of this Court was admissible.
Thirdly, that the decision in the former case was on a point of settlement, and conclusive.