Page images


BASTARDS. Rex v. Pitts. Rex v. Perkalje (a), the rule to Shew cause was granted on (2) Ante,pl. 574. the objection as to the smallness of the fum; but it is

clear, from an attentive perufal of the case, that the ultimate decision went upon the want of adjudication. Most of the cases cited in support of the order make against it; and there is a material difference between the case put by Holt, in Suddlecomb v. Burwash, and this case; for the case he puts is of a substantive declaration, " that it has appeared, &c." and so probably the order run in the case there referred to, of Rcx v. Darnal; but here, the words it hath appeared to us,” arc coupled with the evidence (b), and do not seem to differ in meaning froin “ we do believe,” in Stailinburgh v. Haxbay, , where the reason given for quaihing the order was (and which equally applies here), " that a man may believe a

thing on uncertain evidence.”- BULLER, Justice, hav(c) Eaiter, ing mentioned Rex v. Gravesend stated in Bett (c),15. Geo. 2 where, according to his account of it, there was no Ante, pl. 595. adjudication of the birth of the child in the parith but

under a I keregs,” and the Court held that to be sufficient,--the Court deferred giving their opinion till there should be an opportunity of enquiring

more fully into the circumitances of that cute : LORD MANSFIELD absent.-- This day his Lord'hip was in court, but not having heard the argument at the bar, the judgment was delivered by WILLES, Justice, to the following effect :Willes, Justice, (after stating the objection, and observing upon the cales of Rex v. Perkaffe, and Suddlecom

v. Burwash) The case of St. Giles's Cripplegate v. Hack(d) Easter, niy (d) seems to be more like the preient than Sud9. Will. 3.

diecomb v. Burwash. In that last case, the dieium is as 1.Silk. 478. was stated by Mr. Bower; however, the report cou

cludes by saying, “there ought to be a particular aver“ ment, &c.” and in St. Giles's Cripplegate v. Hackney, the order runs very much in the same manner as here, siz “Whereas on oath made by the faid E. F. it appears " that her husband was last legally settled at Hackney; and that order was quaihed,

as quarhed, “because there was no “ judgment of the justices concerning the last legal fet(O) Salk. 478.

“ tlement, but only the oath of the woman" (c). We have looked into the proceedings in Rex v. Gravesend, and we find, that there was an express adjudication in that cale. We are, therefore, all of opinion, that this order cannot be supported.---Both the orders quashed.

(6) They are so put in the case of Suddlecomb v.


599. Rex

599. Rex. z. Stanley, Easier Term, 22. Geo. 3. Cald. 172. The justices

I wo juftices of the West Riding of the county of Zork, must adjudge by an order dated the 29th of May 1781, adjudge Thomas been born in the Stanley of Workjop, in the county of Nottingham, to be parish to be the reputed father of a bastard child begotten upon Ann charged by tlmir Storey of Anton, in the said Wc Riding; " which said order. child is now become chargeable, &c. ad is likely so “ to continue;" and then proceed to order maintenance, &c.-WALLACE infifted, that there was no adjudication that the child was born in the parith charged with its maintenance, nothing more being stated than that it was chargeable to the parish, and likely to to continue : and the order was quaihed.

IX. Of the appeal. 600. Re* v. Coston, Trinitr, 15. Car. 2. 1. Sid. 149.— The appeal It was resolved, that the words “ next general sessions” in must be to the the 18. Eliz. c. 3. must be intended, that the order made the order was by two justices must be confirmed or discharged at the made, next general seffions for that part of the county where it was made, and not at the festions in the county ; for it would be mischievous in many counties, where there are feveral feflions in diftinct parts of the county.

601. Rex v. Brown, Trinity Term, 9, 1illiam 3. 2. Salk. An appeal from 480.-An order was made, adjudging Brown to be the an order of halfather of a bastard child, May 2, 169h, and in the Mia tardy must be to chaelmas sessions following the said order was discharged. the first fillions Now both orders being here, the latter was quashed, be- the father. cause it did appear thereupon, that Michaelmas sessions Comb. 443. was the first feftions after notice given to the reputed father of his being so adjudged ; for though 18. Eliz. c. 3. appoints the appeal not to be to the first sessions after the order of the two justices, but the first fellions after the party hath notice of the said order, yet by the statute of 2. Hen. 5. c.4. there might be a feflions intervening, as in this case, between the order by the two justices and the order of feffions; and it must appear on the order that this was the first sessions after notice had of the former order: after which the first order by the two juftices was quaihed, because there was an adjudication therein, that the reputed father should pay a certain fum weekly till the child be of seven years of age; whereas they cannot charge the father for any certain determinate time, but as long as the child shall be chargcable to the parith.

602. Rex

Appeal must be 602. Rex v. Shaw, Trinity, 10. IVill. 3. 2. Salk. 482. to the next ge. -An order was made by two justices adjudging Shaw neral festions after notice.

the reputed father of a baitard; from which he appealed to the next quarter Jefrons of the peace after notice, where the order was discharged. The order of sessions was quashed, because by the statute 18. Eliz. the appeal must be to the next general scllions after notice, and there might have been a general feilions before the general quarter sessions, as in London and Middlesex, where there are four general sessions in a year besides the four general quarter

sessions (a). (a) Vide poft. page 447, LORD KENYON's observation on this case.

X. Of the jurisdiction of the fifrons. After 24 June

603. By 5. Geo. 2. c. 19. “ Upon all appeals to be 1732, justices “nade to the justices of the peace at their respective gemay rectify de “ neral or quarter sessions to be holden for any county, feas of form on « riding, city, liberty, or precinct, within that part

of appeals,

Great Britain called England, against judgments or or“ ders given or made by any justices of the peace as afore“ faid, such justices so affembled at any general or quarter “ feflions shall, and they are hereby required, from time “ to time, within their respective jurisdi&tions, upon all ķand every such appeals fo made to them, to cause any $ defect or deiccts of form that shall be found in any şs such original judgments or orders to be rectified and

s amended without any cost or charges to the partics and may pro

“ concerned, and after such amencment made thall prooced to deter- « ceed to hear, examine, and consider the truth and memine them. crits of all maiters concerning such original judgments

" or orders; and likewise to examine all witnesses upon « cath, and hear all other proofs relating thereto, and “ to make such determinations thereupon as hy law they “ Mould or ought to have done in case there had not

• been such detect or want of form in the original pro“ ceeding, any law, usage, or custom to the contpary not

« withstanding." After the lif

604. Slater’s Cali, Easter Term, 19. Car. I. Cro.Cor.471 fons have made - First, It was resolved by the whole Court, that bean order, i wo fore the statute 3. Car. 1. c. 4. the fcilions had not aujjiices canuot.

thority to meddle in the case of bastardy till the two next justices, according to the statute 18. Eliz. c. 3. had made an order therein, and that then, and not betore, the juf

tices in feflions might make a new order, &c. otherwise Sursions have not. SECONDLY, That by the 3. Car, c. 4. the feffions original autho- have authority originally to make an order in the case of rity. baftardy; and therefore the first order made by the fer

fions in this case was good and legal, and the order made SLATER'S

Case. by the two next justices void, and could not alter or revoke the order (of feffions) which was first made by good authority. THIRDLY, That the justices had not Justices cannot authority to commit the woman to prison for life for commit. the first offence,

605. Pridgeon's Cafe, Bulsirode, 255.-Anorder was made No appeal lies upon Pridgeon by two justices of peace, directing him to from an order make a weekly allowance for maintaining a bastard child made on appeal of which they adjudged him the reputed father; which at quarter ferorder was quashed at the sessions, and another was made sequent sessions there upon J. S. adjudging him to be the reputed father, &c.: afterwards, at another sessions, the last order was discharged, and by the same order of feflions Pridgeon was found again to be the reputed father of the bastard child, and ordered to make an allowance for its maintenance. These orders being removed by certiorari into the king's bench, it was resolved by the whole Court, that the second order made upon Pridgeon at the quarter fefiions was clearly illegal; that no appeal lay from the first nrder of the festions to the sessions afterwards, but that the first order of seflions was final.

order of bala

606. Wood's Cafe, Trinity Term, 13. Car. I. 2. Bul- The feffions strode, 355:-On complaint to the Teflions against a may quath an woman having a bastard child, the matter was by them

tardy made by referred according to law to the two next justices to have

swo justices, and the examination and ordering thereof. The faid two juf- make an original țices made an order against John Wood to be the reputed order on another father, and ordered him to pay a weekly fum towards person as the the maintenance of the faid child. Wood appealed to

reputed father,

against which the sessions ; and the justices there, on a re-examina-loriginal order tion of the matter, disallowed of the order made by the there is no ap, two justices, and they there made a new order, by which peal. they charged one William Cole to be the reputed father. On a reference of the matter to Sir WILLIAM JONES, judge of allize, and both the orders being read in court, that is, the order made by the two next justices, and the subsequent order made at the sessions, he would not enter into the re-examination of this cause, but did, in omnibus, affirm the last order made by the sessions upon appeal to them from the first order; which last order made at the feffions was final, and no appeal to be admitted against it; and this, he said, had been adjudged divers times, and mentioned particularly Pridgeon's case.

607. Rex

[ocr errors]

the 18. Eliz.

Note the differe_607: Reg. v. Ieston, Trinity, 4. Ann. 1. Salk. 122,ence berween

The ferlions, with regard to the fathers of bastards, must
C. 3. and 3.Car. proceed upon the recognizance on the 18th Eliz. c. 3.;

but if they proceed on the 3. Car. 1. c. 4. they may
commit as the two justices might have done, that is,
unless the party put in fecurity to perform the order, or

to appear at the next feflions.
The reffions 608. Reg. v. Ridge, Mich. Tirm, II. Ann. MSS.-
cannot tine a Å swore that B. got her with child, and a warrant was
conitable for

granted to the defendant Ridge, then being constable, to fuffering the putative father apprehend B. and he let him efcape.

The juftices to efcape. made an order upon Ridge to pay three pounds towards

the expences the parish has been at, and one thilling
a-week towards the inaintenance of the child, and the
mother to pay fixpence a week.-Quathed as to the con-
itable, the justices not having such authority; but con-
firmed as to the inother.

appear, the

In an original

609. Rex c'. Clegg, Mich. Tem, 8. Gr. 1. Stra. 475:order of bar- An order of bastardy was made at leftions (which was tardy made at admitted to have original jurisdiction). MR. DENTON fechons, it ought objected, that it was not taid the defendant was cverfumto appear that the reputed

moned or appeared, and natural justice required that he father was fum. Ihould at least have an opportunity to defend himself. -mrned; there- PRATT, Chit jutice. I believe these orders ma lecriginally fore, oplers the

at fentions are very rare, the uíual way being to bring the contrary fall

watter before tlic fellions b¢ way of appeal from the orcourt wiil pre.

der of two justicos. Noril it thould be taken, that the fume that he order of tuo juftices will be well enough, without their was fomnioned, thewing a fummons or appearance; yet I think this cate alihough not so Nated in the

will fall under a very different confideration. For in the ordtr.

other case the party has an opportunity to relieve himfuf by appeal, whereas upon an original order at fefsions he can have no opportunity to bring the matter to a father exainination; fo tliat it is but a lewd woman's going hehind his back and swearing a battard upon him, by which Incans the most innoceni ma: in the worla


be CON(*) 50 Mod

demned. In the cafe of the Queen ? Simpson (a), it was long 243. 34', 378. debated, wlicther there onght not to have been a personal Cal. 246. G.b, 232.

appearance of the sleer. stealcr; at lait indeed it was deterinincd, that a fummons was fufficient, but it was never offered to be fupported upon the foot of not Thewing a fummons. So far from it, that exceptions were taken to the manner of the summons, and the Court delivered a

special opinion as to them.-Eyre,Justice (absente Powis). Id. Ray. 1456. Te not appearing that this order was made in the abfence of the party, I think we must take it to be a regu,


[ocr errors]

Sira. 44.

« PreviousContinue »