1846. The appellants objected that no sufficient notice was Queen's Bench. proved to have been given to the parish officers of Holne of the intended binding. The Court overruled this objection also, and confirmed the order. The questions for the opinion of this Court were: 1. Whether it is a sufficient ground of appeal, under the circumstances stated, that the examinations of the four witnesses named in the grounds, were not reduced to writing, and no copy of them was sent to the appellants. 2. Whether notice of the intended binding, delivered to one of the overseers of Holne, but directed to the whole body of the parish officers, is a sufficient notice under stat. 56 G. 3. c. 139. s. 2. If the Court shall decide the first question in the affirmative, or the second in the negative, the order of sessions to be quashed: if otherwise, to be confirmed. J. Greenwood, in support of the order of sessions. The QUEEN V. The Inhabitants of HOLNE. The QUEEN v. The Inhabit that Volume IX. the enactment of of stat. 56 G. 3. c. 139. s. 2., 1846. "notice shall be given to the overseers of the poor of the parish or place" into which the child is to be apprenticed. Service on one is service on all: it will be presumed that they are in communication one with another. This view is supported by Rex v. The Justices of Staffordshire (a), Rex v. The Justices of Warwickshire (b), and 2 Nolan's P. L. (4th ed.) 527, note (5), there cited. ants of HOLNE. Merivale, contrà. First, sect. 79 of stat. 6 & 7 W. 4. c. 76., by directing that "a copy of the examination" upon which the order is made shall be "sent," by implication requires that all the evidence shall be taken in writing (c). Now, if the removing justices have chosen, at the hearing, to receive evidence from the parish to which the pauper was removed, that constitutes an "examination upon which such order was made" equally with evidence offered from the other side. It is true that the parish to which the removal is made may be expected to be in possession of the evidence tendered by themselves but that, at the utmost, is only a reason why the legislative provision might have been made less extensive. Probably the legislature did not contemplate the occurrence of such a case. Even matter which never is taken down, such as documents, must be sent. The omission, it may be said, is that of the justices, not of the respondent parish. But it renders the act of the justices illegal, and therefore may be objected to on appeal against their act. Secondly, notice to one parish officer is generally sufficient: but here the language of the statute is peculiar. Notice is to be "given to the : (c) See The Earl of Harborough v. Shardlow, 7 M. & W. 87. 1846. The QUEEN V. The Inhabitants of HOLNE. overseers"; and the notice must be proved before the Queen's Bench. justice signs the indenture, "unless one of such overseers shall attend such justice, and admit such notice." It was intended that every possible precaution should be taken; and on this ground, in Rex v. Threlkeld (a), it was decided that the notice must be given though both the parishes be in the same county and jurisdiction of the peace. Lord DENMAN C. J. There can be no doubt that the service of notice is good. As to the other point, I am of opinion that the order of removal cannot be said to have been made upon the evidence given on behalf of the appellant parish. PATTESON J. If this had been evidence tendered on behalf of the removing parish, I am far from saying that the removing justices would have had any discretion as to taking it down or not. But here it comes from the other side, and is not taken down, because the order is not made upon it. As to the other point, the service of the notice was clearly good. WILLIAMS J. How could the parish, from which the removal was made, compel the removing justices to take down evidence given by the other parish? Yet are they, because they cannot do this, not to obtain the order of removal? I think that the order is not made on that evidence. Order of sessions confirmed. (a) 4 B. & Ad, 229. Volume IX. 1846. Saturday, Stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 76. s. 68. enacts that no person shall retain a ON The QUEEN against The Inhabitants of N appeal against an order of two justices, whereby George Reynolds, his wife, and children, were removed from the parish of Saffron Walden to the parish of Arkesden, both in Essex, the sessions quashed the estate or inter- order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. settlement, gained by possessing an est in a parish, for a longer time than he shall inhabit "with in ten miles thereof." the pauper resided out of the parish, that these words mean ten miles measured in a direct line from the residence to the nearest point of the parish. George Reynolds, the pauper, was originally settled in Arkesden, above mentioned: he subsequently acquired a settlement by estate in the parish of Furneux Pelham, Held, where in Hertfordshire, by possession of and residence on some land, his own property, in that parish. At the time of his removal, under the above mentioned order, he no longer inhabited on the said land in the parish of Furneux Pelham; nor did he any longer inhabit the last mentioned parish: but he inhabited a house in the parish of Saffron Walden, to which last mentioned parish he then was chargeable. From the boundary of the parish of Furneux Pelham, to the said house which the pauper was inhabiting in Saffron Walden, the distance is ten miles and a quarter, by the nearest mode of access: but, measured in a straight line on a horizontal plane from such boundary to such house, the distance is but nine miles. From the boundary of the estate and land, above mentioned, in the parish of Furneux Pelham to the house so inhabited by the pauper in Saffron Walden, the distance is more than ten miles. by the nearest mode of access: but, measured in a 1816. The QUEEN straight line, the distance is but nine miles. And, from Queen's Bench, the boundary of the parish of Furneux Pelham to the boundary of the parish of Saffron Walden, the distance by either of the above modes of measurement is less than ten miles. If the Court should be of opinion that the pauper, at the time of the making of the order of removal, still retained his settlement in Furneur Pelham, the order of sessions was to be confirmed: if the Court should be of opinion that the pauper no longer retained that settlement, the order of sessions to be quashed. M. Chambers and Wordsworth, in support of the order of Sessions. The question arises on sect. 68 of stat. 4 & 5 IV. 4. c. 76., which enacts: "That no person shall be deemed, adjudged, or taken to retain any settlement, gained by virtue of any possession of any estate or interest in any parish, for any longer or further time than such person shall inhabit within ten miles thereof." The last word, "thereof," must refer to parish, not estate. That opinion is expressed in note (a) of p. 855., vol. iv., of the last (29th) edition of Burn's Justice. Here the residence is within ten miles of the parish, if the distance be measured in a straight line. That measurement agrees with the interpretation which, in sect. 76 of stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18., the legislature has put upon the provision as to residence "within seven statute miles in the Parliamentary Reform Act, 2 & 3 W. 4. c. 45. s. 27. It was also the construction which Parke J., in opposition to the rest of the Court, put upon a covenant not to keep a public house within half a mile of a certain other public house; Leigh v. Hind (a). The other Judges (a) 9 B. & C. 774. The Inhabitants of SAFFRON WALDEN. |