BEX V. JONES. dices, he is indictable for his difobedience and breach of that; and there is no foundation for the diftinction between a conftable and an overfeer: therefore judgment for the profecution. Overfeersindict. older of justices. 348. Rex v. Davis & Al', Mich. 28. Geo. 2. MSS.able for not re- The defendants were indicted for not receiving a pauper ceiving a pauper fent to them by order of two juftices, and they were found fent to them by guilty upon their trial. A motion was made in arreft of S. C. Sayer, 16. Judgment, as not being an indictable matter. But judgment was affirmed; for a power of removing a pauper being given to two juftices by the 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. the not receiving him is a difobedience of that ftatute, for which an indictment will lie; for whoever refufes to obey an act of parliament is indictable, unless another remedy is provided; which there is not in this cafe. (a). The Court will grant an infor. overfeers for confpiring to Strange, 757 349. Rex v. Herbert and Others, Eofier Term, 32. Geo. 2. -AN INFORMATION was moved for against the defenmation against dants, who were overfeers of the poor in the parish of Trinity, in Coventry, on affidavits charging them with a marry a pauper, confpiracy in procuring one Yardley, a cripple, and parillioner of Great Harborough, to marry a young woman who belonged to Trinity. The officers pretended, that the match was of the parties own choofing, and that they only attended to fee the ceremony regularly performed. But THE COURT thought that they had not fufficiently exculpated themfelves, and held this offence, if true, to be proper for the animadverfion of this Court; and therefore made the rule abfolute. The Court will overfeer, but drive the party (•) Allen, 78. 350. Rex v. Pardy and Another, Trinity Term, 7. Geo. 3. not quash an in- MSS.-This was a motion to quafh an indictment which dictment against had been found against the defendants for not taking upon them the office of overfeer of the poor. THE FIRST to his demurrer. OBJECTION was, Becaufs it was not stated by whom they wercappointed over feers, but only "debito modo apponit. :" and in fupport of this objection Prigg's Cafe (a) was cited; where an indictment against a man, ftating that legitimè cleftus fuit headborough of fuch a vill, et non præftitit facramentum fuum before any juftice of peace to execute the office, fed voluntariè et obftinatè abftained from it, was quafhed, because it did not appear bow be was chofen headborough. THE SECOND OBJECTION was, Because it was a joint indictment; and in this cafe the (a) It was contended, that the indictment would not lie, becaufe the 3. & 4. Will. & Mary, c. 11. had provided another remedy; but the Court faid, that the provifion of this ftatute orly applied to cafes where the removal was to a place out of the jurifdiction of the justice. offence offence of one can never be the offence of the other.—But THE COURT refufed to quafh the indictment for thefe exceptions, and faid, the party might demur to it, if they pleated. an overfeer for giving a man money to marry to difburthen his own parish. 2106. 351. Rex v. Tarrant and Others, Trinity Term, 7. Geo. 3. An information -Motion for AN INFORMATION againit the defendant, granted against for giving a man a fum of three guineas to marry a woman who was big with child by another man, to difburthen his own parith, and throw it on the parish to a woman who which the hufband belonged. For the defendant it was was with child infitted, that by his affidavits it appeared, that the man and woman had contracted themfelves without his previous knowledge or confent; and that though Tarrant S. C. 4. Burr. had given him fomething, that was in compliance to overtures made to him by the father, who had asked him what he would give him to take off the cow and calf? meaning the woman big with child. Tarrant faid, he would give him three guineas, and fome faggots; which were accepted, and they were married. And alfo, that it appeared in exprefs terms by the affidavits, that when the man and woman agreed to be married, the man faid he would put it off, to fee what he could get from the churchwardens; that it was a mere pretence of delaying to be married, not from any diflike, but to carry on a fraud with him, and obtain money; and that he the defendant had only promoted and not forced the man's inclinations. But THE COURT thought that this was grofs mifbehaviour, and therefore granted the information. the poor the row money on 352. How v. Keech, Bedford Lent Afizes, 1772.--The If on a difpute plaintiff declared upon two notes given him by the defen- refpecting a rate dant; by one of which the defendant promifed to pay to the for the relief of plaintiff twenty pounds, and by the other ten pounds. matter be refor The plaintiff likewife, in the third and fourth count, de- red, and in the clared for fifty pounds had and received by defendant mean time the for the ufe of the plaintiff, on the fame days on which the OVERSEER BOFnotes were dated. The notes were as follow: "I PRO- his own rotes "MISE to pay Richard How, or order, twenty pounds, for the relief of out of the first levy which fhall be collected for relief the poor, and of the poor, he having this day advanced that fum to make no rate me, EBENEZER KEECH. Appley, Jan. 22, 1771." The the money, the fecond note was in thefe words: "I PROMISE to pay lender may re"Richard How, or order, ten pounds, as above-men- cover it againft "tioned, he having this day advanced that fum to me him in an ac"on the faid account. EBENEZER KEECH, Afpley, Feb. tion for money 25. 1771." These notes were both written on the fame piece of paper. The defendant pleaded, that he did 66 66 66 not to rein burfe had and received to his ufe, How V.KEECH. not undertake in the manner and form in which the plaintiff had declared; upon which iffue was joined. At the trial it was proved that the notes were figned by the defendant, and that he had confeffed that he had received the money from the plaintiff and it was admitted on all hands, that, previous to the date of these notes, there had been difputes about the poor rates of Afpley, between the plaintiff and his tenants on one fide, and Mr. Moore, a gentleman of confiderable property, and feveral other of the parishioners, on the other fide; that the rates were quafhed at the Epiphany feffions 1771, and the matters in difpute referred for examination to two gentlemen, by an order of feffions; and at the fame time, to prevent the poor from being without relief, while the matters in difpute were under the examination of the referees, the plaintiff and Mr. Moore agreed and undertook before the juftices to advance money to the defendant, then overfeer of the poor, to be applied folely to their relief; and the plaintiff accordingly advanced the fum of thirty pounds. The reference was fruitlefs, from a difagreement in opinion of the referees, who made their report to the juftices at the Eafter feffions in 1771. The defendant continued in office about fix weeks after the date of the laft note, but did not make any rate or levy in that time, by which means the plaintiff was forced to bring this action to recover the money fo advanced to the defendant.-MR. BARON ADAMS ruled, that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover upon the third and fourth counts, for money had and received for the plaintiff's ufe: The validity of the notes was therefore not agitated. CHAP CHAPTER THE FIFTH. RATING PARISHES IN AID. 86 I. The statutes. II. The form of the rate. III. Rating parishes within THE HUNDRED. V. Of the diftricts or divifions liable to be affeffed. I. The Statutes. 353. BY 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 3. "If the juftices of peace (a) Two juffices do perceive that the inhabitants of any parifh are may rate one "not able to levy among themfelves fufficient fums of parish within the money for the purposes aforefaid; that then the faid bundred in aid of another parish, "two juftices fhall and may tax, rate, and affefs as afore"faid any other of other parishes or out of any parifh (4) Vide ante, "within the hundred where the faid parifh is, to pay fuch pl. 1. and 2. "fum and fums of money to the churchwardens and "overfeers of the faid poor parith for the faid purposes "as the faid juftices fhall think fit according to the intent "of this law." rate any parish 354. And by 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 3. "If the faid hundred And if such pa"fhall not be thought by the faid juftices able and fit to ith is not able, "relieve the faid feveral parithes unable to provide for the fifions may "themfelves as aforefaid, then the juftices of the peace within the "at their general quarter feffions, or the greater number county. "of them, fhall rate and affefs as aforefaid any other of "other parishes or out of any parifh within the faid "county, for the purpofes aforefaid, as in their difcretion "fhail feem fit.” II. The form of the rate. 355. The cafe of the parish of St. Rumbald's, Mich. Au order rating 2. Jac. 2. Skinner, 258.--The parish of St. Rumbald's in others in aid is Calchefter being furcharged with poor, the juftices made do not purfue an order that two other parishes in Colchester thould pay the words of the relief to the poor within the parish, viz. the one five fhil- ftatute. ings a week, and the other eight fillings a week, and that the overfeers fhould collect it. This order being re to order the quantum, and the overfeers to The justices are moved by certiorari, it was moved to quash it, because it had not purfued the direction of 43.. Eliz. c. 2. f. 3. which fays the juftices fhall affefs "others of other parithes," make the rate. and therefore it ought to have defcribed the particular perfons affeffed, and not the parithes generally.-But THE COURT were of opinion, that the order was well enough, and according to the right courfe; for the juftices are only to affefs the quantum, and then the rate is to be made by the overfcers of the poor of the parish. adjacent pa must appear to 3. An order rating 356. Rex v. Griefly, Trinity, 2. Jac. 2. Comb. 25-Au order of feffions was returned upon the 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. riches in aid, for rating the adjacent parifhes in aid for the relief of a have been made poor parith. An objection was taken, that it did not by two juftices purfue the words of the ftatute, which are," that if the out of feflions.faid juftices of the peace do perceive, &c. that then the "faid two juftices thall tax any other of other pa"rifhes, &c." whereas it appears that this order was made by the feffions.And for this reafon it was quafhed. S.C.Viner,430. An order rating others in aid must state that the parish was unable to pro vide for its own poor; or ufc words tant 357. Rex v. Inhabitants of Little Glen, Hilary, 5. Will &Mary, Comb. 241.-It was moved to quath an order made by two juftices that the inhabitants of Little Glen, in the county of Leicefter, fhould pay a yearly fum to Whelftone: FIRST, Because it was not faid quorum unus: SECONDLY, Becaule it was only faid that helftone was at great charge in maintaining the poor, but not that they were unable, pursuant to the ftatute. The firft exception (See 26.Geo. was difallowed (a).—Cork T. The justices at feffions made an order upon an appeal, in which it was flated, that the parish was prefed; and it was held that it implied inability. amount. 2. C. 27. Ante, page 1. in notis. may either An order rating 359. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Knightly, Mich. 6. Will. parishes in aid & Mary, Comb. 309.-Upon an order made by two jufcharge particu- tices for contribution to the relief of a poor parith, it was lar perfons, or ruled, that the juftices may either charge particular perthe whole parith fons or the whole parith. But in this cate the order for a fum in grofs for the relief of the whole year. S. C. Sett. & Rom. 53. charged a fum in grofs to be levied for the whole year; and it was objected, that this form of ordering relief was unreasonable, for the ability of the parish to provide for the poor may within that time change. The order, however, notwithstanding this objection, was confirmed, 359. Conbett v. St. Mary, Lincoln, Viner, Abr. title Poor, 431.-It must appear that the parish which pays in aid of another was not able to pay fufficient fums, and there muft be an affertion and adjudication that it appeared fo to the justices who make the order. 359. Anany |