approve of them. Ever since the great case of Lickbarrow v. Mason (a) the law has been considered to be that the bonâ fide transferee, for value, of a bill of lading, indorsed by the shipper or his consignee, and put into circulation by the authority of the shipper or consignee, has an absolute title to the goods, freed from the equitable right of the unpaid vendor to stop in transitu, as against the purchaser; and we believe it to be of essential importance to commerce that this law should be upheld. For these reasons we give Judgment for the plaintiffs. (a) See note (a), ante, p. 627. 1854. GURNEY V. BEHREND. The QUEEN against the Inhabitants of for ON N appeal against an order of two justices, removal of Harriet Berrington, the wife of John Berrington, and her three lawful children, from the parish St. James, Clerkenwell, in Middlesex, to the parish of Benjeworth in Worcestershire, the Sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon a case stating substantially as follows. Wednesday, No settlement is gained by the occupation of a tenement, by reason of payment of rates under M. c. 11. s. 6., if the payment be made by a party not authorized by The grounds of removal, so far as material to the case, the occupier alleged as follows. Harriet Berrington was the wife of John Berrington, a prisoner under sentence of transportation. In 1832, John Berrington hired by the year a separate and distinct tenement, consisting of a dwelling house situate in the to make the payment. 1854. The QUEEN V. Inhabitants of BENJEWORTH. parish of Benjeworth, at the rent of 30l. a year: and he held, rented and actually occupied and resided in the said house, under the said yearly hiring, for two years; and he paid the said rent in each of such years; and he was charged with, and paid his share of, the poor rates of the said parish in respect of the said house, and resided therein for forty days after payment thereof. The appellants in their grounds of appeal traversed these settlements. At the trial of the appeal, the respondents relied solely upon the settlement by payment of taxes. And they proved that settlement to the satisfaction of the Court. of Quarter Sessions, if the following facts as to the payment of the poor's rate are sufficient in point of law. It was proved by Harriet Berrington, the wife, that she had seen the poor rates, in respect of the house in question, paid on two several occasions by her husband, John Berrington, during his occupation thereof; and that she believed they continued to live there for more than two months after the last payment. The appellants called John Berrington; who stated that he had no recollection of having paid any rates or taxes for the house in question; and that, if they were paid, the payments were made for him by his wife's father, as he had not the means of paying them. The respondents then called for the rate books which they had given the appellants notice to produce; but the appellants did not produce them. "The Court of Quarter Sessions found, upon the evidence, that the rates were paid by the father in law for the pauper, and that he resided for upwards of forty days after payment; but that he had no authority from the pauper to pay them." 1854. The QUEEN V. The question for the opinion of this Court is whether, on the above evidence and finding, the Sessions were right in confirming the order. If so, order of removal and order of Sessions to stand confirmed; if otherwise, BENJEWORTH. to be quashed. Pashley, in support of the order of Sessions. The question is, whether this was a payment by John Berrington of rates, within stat. 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11. s. 6. He occupied the tenement, and was assessed. On the other side, it will be contended that, inasmuch as the father in law had no authority from the pauper to pay, the rates were not, in legal effect, paid by the pauper. But in Rex v. Bridgewater (a), where a friend of the pauper, without any communication with him, and in his name, paid land tax to prevent a distress, this was held to be a payment by the pauper. Archbold and Clarkson, contrà, were not called on. Lord CAMPBELL C. J. Can any stranger to a man make himself the man's creditor by paying his debt? In Rex v. Bridgewater (a) the Court must have understood the Sessions to have thought there was an authority; if they did not, I think the decision not law. Here the authority is expressly negatived. WIGHTMAN J. I suppose the Court in Rex v. Bridgewater (a) thought that the authority was to be inferred from the relation of the parties. (a) 3 T. R. 550. Inhabitants of 1854. The QUEEN V. Inhabitants of BENJEWORTH. CROMPTON J. (a). That must have been their inference of fact, right or wrong. They could not have meant to break in upon the principles of common law. Order of Sessions quashed. (a) Erle J. was absent. Thursday, May 4th. Under stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. and measures; they think fit, select inspec- intendents of therefore such appointment The QUEEN against JARVIS. POWER, in this Term, obtained a rule calling on the defendant to shew cause why the writ of certiorari in this prosecution should not be quashed, and the return made thereto taken off the file of this Court and sent back to the Sessions. From the affidavit on which the rule was obtained, it appeared that, at a Quarter Sessions holden for Suffolk on 1st February, 1854, for the appointment of inspectors of weights and measures, under stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 63., the Sessions appointed an inspector and four superintendents of police to be inspectors of weights and measures for four districts respectively. Nothing was contained in the order respecting salary. The order was afterwards removed by a writ of certiorari, obtained at Chambers, under the order of Crompton J. Worlledge now shewed cause. The order is bad, for want of jurisdiction; and therefore, though sect. 36 enacts that no proceeding under the Act shall be removed by certiorari, the order will be quashed. By sect. 10 of the Rural Police Act, 2 & 3 Vict. c. 93., the superintendents of police are forbidden to employ themselves in any other way than under that Act. [Wightman J. That is "for hire or gain." In this case the appointments are not at a salary.] This is for hire or gain, because stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 63. s. 17. makes it a duty of the justices to direct a remuneration to the inspectors whom they appoint. [Crompton J. If the justices appointed these superintendents without salary in order that they might fill up the time for which they were paid under the police Act, was that an act in excess of jurisdiction? The power to give a salary does not make it unlawful not to give a salary, if the person to whom it would be paid, if given at all, consents to act gratuitously.] The two appointments of the same person are illegal, because the duties are inconsistent. The inspectors must on certain days be at certain places; the superintendent may be required by the calls of that office to be elsewhere than at the particular place where, as inspector, he ought to be. Is he to neglect the duties of one of the two offices? [Wightman J. That surmise does not shew that the appointment was one which the justices had not jurisdiction to make.] Power and Couch, contrà, were not called on. 1854. The QUEEN v. JARVIS. Lord CAMPBELL C. J. It is quite clear that this writ ought not to have issued. We should be exceeding our jurisdiction were we to interfere with the discretion of the justices in the matter. WIGHTMAN and CROMPTON JS. (a) concurred. (a) Erle J. was absent. VOL. III. 2 T E. & B. |