REX v. PITTS. Rex v. Perkaffe (a), the rule to fhew caufe was granted on (4) Ante,pl.574. the objection as to the fmalinefs of the fum; but it is (e) Easter, 15. Geo. 2. clear, from an attentive perufal of the cafe, that the ultimate decifion went upon the want of adjudication. Most of the cafes cited in fupport of the order make against it; and there is a material difference between the cafe put by HOLT, in Suddlecomb v. Burwash, and this cafe; for the cafe he puts is of a fubftantive declaration, that it has appeared, &c." and fo probably the order run in the cafe there referred to, of Rex v. Darnal; but here, the words "it hath appeared to us," are coupled with the evidence (b), and do not feem to differ in meaning from "we do believe," in Stallinburgh v. Haxhay, where the reafon given for quafhing the order was (and which equally applies here), "that a man may believe a "thing on uncertain evidence."- BULLER, Juftice, having mentioned Rex v. Gravefend ftated in Bott (c),— 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 "hereas," and the Court held that to be fufficient, the Court deferred giving their opinion till there fhould be an opportunity of enquiring more fully into the circumftances of that cafe: LORD MANSFIELD abfent. This day his Lordship was in court, but not having heard the argument at the bar, the judgment was delivered by WILLES, Juftice, to the following effect:WILLES, Juftice, (after ftating the objection, and obferving upon the cafes of Rex v. Perkaffe, and Suddlecomb v. Burwash) The cafe of St. Giles's Cripplegate v. Hackney (d) feems to be more like the prefent than Suddiecomb v. Burwash. In that laft cafe, the dictum is as was ftated by Mr. Bower; however, the report coucludes by faying, "there ought to be a particular aver (d) Eafter, () 1 Salk. 478. 66 ment, &" and in St. Giles's Cripplegate v. Hackney, the order runs very much in the fame manner as here, riz "Whereas on oath made by the faid E. F. it appears "that her husband was laft legally fettled at Hackney;" and that order was quafhed, "because there was no judgment of the juftices concerning the laft legal fet"tlement, but only the oath of the woman" (e). We have looked into the proceedings in Rex v. Gravesend, and we find, that there was an exprefs adjudication in that cafe. We are, therefore, all of opinion, that this order. cannot be fupported.-Both the orders quafhed. (6) They are fo put in the cafe of Suddlecomb v. Burwash. 599. Rex 3: 599. Rex. v. Stanley, Eafter Term, 22. Geo. 3. Cald. 172, The juftices muft adjudge a -Two juftices of the Weft Riding of the county of York, baftard to have by an order dated the 29th of May 1781, adjudge Thomas been born in the Stanley of Workfop, in the county of Nottingham, to be parish to be the reputed father of a baftard child begotten upon Ann charged by their Storey of Anton, in the faid Weft Riding; "which faid order. "child is now become chargeable, &c. and is likely fo "to continue;" and then proceed to order maintenance, &c.—WALLACE infifted, that there was no adjudication that the child was born in the parish charged with its maintenance, nothing more being ftated than that it was chargeable to the parish, and likely fo to continue: and the order was quashed. IX. Of the appeel. The appeal must be to the the order was divifion wherein 600. Rex v. Coyfton, Trinity, 15. Car. 2. 1. Sid. 149. It was refolved, that the words "next general feffions" in the 18. Eliz. c. 3. must be intended, that the order made by two juftices must be confirmed or discharged at the made, next general feffions for that part of the county where it was made, and not at the feffions in the county; for it would be mifchievous in many counties, where there are feveral feffions in diftinct parts of the county. after father. 601. Rex v. Brown, Trinity Term, 9, William 3. 2. Salk. An appeal from 480.-An order was made, adjudging Brown to be the an order of haffather of a baftard child, May 2, 1696, and in the Mi- tardy must be to chaelmas feffions following the faid order was difcharged. the first feffions Now both orders being here, the latter was quafhed, be- her notes to caufe it did appear thereupon, that Michaelmas feffions Comb. 448. was the first feffions after notice given to the reputed father of his being fo adjudged; for though 18. Eliz. c. 3. appoints the appeal not to be to the firft feffions after the order of the two juftices, but the first feffions after the party hath notice of the faid order, yet by the ftatute of 2. Hen. 5. c. 4. there might be a feffions intervening, as in this cafe, between the order by the two juftices and the order of feffions; and it must appear on the order that this was the firft feffions after notice had of the former order: after which the first order by the two juftices was quathed, because there was an adjudication therein, that the reputed father fhould pay a certain fum weekly till the child be of feven years of age; whereas they cannot charge the father for any certain determinate time, but as long as the child fhall be chargeable to the parish. Appeal must be neral feffions after notice. 602. Rex v. Shaw, Trinity, 10. Will. 3. 2. Salk. 482. to the next ge--An order was made by two juftices adjudging Shaw the reputed father of a bastard; from which he appealed to the next quarter feffions of the peace after notice, where the order was difcharged. The order of feffions was quafhed, because by the ftatute 18. Eliz. the appeal must be to the next general feffions after notice, and there might have been a general feffions before the general quarter feffions, as in London and Middlefex, where there are four general feffions in a year befides the four general quarter feffions (a). (a) Vide post. page 447, LORD KENYON'S observation on this cafe. After 24 June 1732, justices may rectify defects of form appeals, and may proceed to determine them. an order, two on X. Of the jurifdiction of the feffions. 603. By 5. Geo. 2. c. 19. "Upon all appeals to be "nade to the juftices of the peace at their refpective ge"neral or quarter feffions, to be holden for any county, riding, city, liberty, or precinct, within that part of "Great Britain called England, against judgments or or"ders given or made by any juftices of the peace as afore"faid, fuch juftices fo affembled at any general or quarter "feffions fhall, and they are hereby required, from time "to time, within their refpective jurifdictions, upon all and every fuch appeals fo made to them, to caufe any defect or defects of form that fhall be found in any fuch original judgments or orders to be rectified and "amended without any coft or charges to the parties "concerned, and after fuch amendment made fhall pro"ceed to hear, examine, and confider the truth and me"rits of all matters concerning fuch original judgments or orders; and likewife to examine all witneffes upon cath, and hear all other proofs relating thereto, and "to make fuch determinations thereupon as by law they "fhould or ought to have done in cafe there had not "been fuch defect or want of form in the original pro'ceeding, any law, ufage, or custom to the contrary not"withstanding." After the fef604. Slater's Cafe, Eafter Term, 19. Car. 1. Cro. Car.471 fans have made -FIRST, It was refolved by the whole Court, that before the ftatute 3. Car. 1. c. 4. the fcffions had not aujujuices canuet. thority to meddle in the cafe of baftardy till the two next juftices, according to the ftatute 18. Eliz. c. 3. had made an order therein, and that then, and not before, the juftices in feffions might make a new order, &c. otherwife Soffions have not. SECONDLY, That by the 3. Car. c. 4. the feffions original autho- have authority originally to make an order in the cafe of baftardy; and therefore the first order made by the fef rity. CASE, fions in this cafe was good and legal, and the order made SLATER'S by the two next juftices void, and could not alter or revoke the order (of feffions) which was first made by good authority. THIRDLY, That the juftices had not Juftices cannot authority to commit the woman to prifon for life for commit. the first offence. at quarter fel 605. Pridgeon's Cafe, Bulfirode, 255.-An order was made No appeal lies upon Pridgeon by two juftices 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 fions to a fuborder was quafhed at the feffions, and another was made fequent feffions. there upon J. S. adjudging him to be the reputed father, &c.: afterwards, at another feffions, the laft order was discharged, and by the fame order of fethions Pridgeon was found again to be the reputed father of the bastard child, and ordered to make an allowance for its maintenance. Thefe orders being removed by certiorari into the king's bench, it was refolved by the whole Court, that the fecond order made upon Pridgeon at the quarter feffions was clearly illegal; that no appeal lay from the first order of the feffions to the feffions afterwards, but that the first order of feffions was final. order of baf tardy made by reputed father, 606. Wood's Cafe, Trinity Term, 13. Car. 1. 2. Bul- The feffions ftrode, 355-On complaint to the feffions against a may quash an woman having a bastard child, the matter was by them referred according to law to the two next juftices to have two juftices, and the examination and ordering thereof. The faid two juf- make an original tices made an order against John Wood to be the reputed order on another father, and ordered him to pay a weekly fum towards perfon as the the maintenance of the faid child. Wood appealed to against which the feffions; and the juftices there, on a re-examina-original order tion of the matter, difallowed of the order made by the there is no ap❤ two juftices, 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 affize, and both the orders being read in court, that is, the order made by the two next juftices, and the fubfequent order made at the feffions, he would not enter into the re-examination of this caufe, but did, in omnibus, affirm the last order made by the feffions upon appeal to them from the first order; which laft 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 cafe. 607. Rex Note the difference between the 18. Eliz. C. 3. and 3.Car. 6.4. The feffions cannot fine a conitable for 607. Rez. v. Wefton, Trinity, 4. Ann. 1. Salk. 122.— The feflions, with regard to the fathers of baftards, muft 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 juftices might have done, that is, unless the party put in fecurity to perform the order, or to appear at the next feffions. 608. Reg. v. Ridge, Mich. Term, 11. Ann. MSS.— A fwore that B. got her with child, and a warrant was granted to the defendant Ridge, then being conflable, to putative father apprehend B. and he let him efcape. The juftices Suffering the to efcape. In an original order of baf contrary fhall appear, the Court will prefome that he order. made an order upon Ridge to pay three pounds towards the expences the parish has been at, and one fhilling a-week towards the maintenance of the child, and the mother to pay fixpence a week.-Quafhed as to the conftable, the justices not having fuch authority; but confirmed as to the mother. 609. Rex v. Clegg, Mich. Term, 8. Gen. 1. Stra. 475.An order of baftardy was made at feflions (which was tardy made at admitted to have original jurifdiction). MR. DENTON fethions, it ought objected, that it was not faid the defendant was ever fumto appear that the reputed moned or appeared, and natural juftice required that he father was fum- fhould at leaft have an opportunity to defend himself. --mened; there- PRATT, Chief fuftice. I believe thefe orders made originally fore, unless the at fettions are very rare, the ufual way being to bring the matter before the fellions by way of appeal from the order of two juftices. Now if it thould be taken, that the order of two juftices will be well enough, without their was fummoned, fhewing a fummons or appearance; yet I think this cafe although not fo will fall under a very different confideration. For in the fated in the other cafe the party has an opportunity to relieve himself by appeal, whereas upon an original order at feflions he can have no opportunity to bring the matter to a farther examination; fo that it is but a lewd woman's going bee hind his back and fwearing a baftard upon him, by which means the most innocent man in the world may be con(*) to Med demned. In the cafe of the Queen v. Simpson (a), it was long 248. 34, 378. debated, whether there ought not to have been a perfonal 8. cf. Caf. 346. appearance of the deer- ftealer; at laft indeed it was deG.ib. 28.2. termined, that a fummons was fufficient, but it was never offered to be fupported upon the foot of not fhewing a fummons. So far from it, that exceptions were taken to the manner of the fummons, and the Court delivered a fpecial opinion as to them.-EYRE, Justice (abfente Powis), d. Ray. 146. It not appearing that this order was made in the abfence of the party, I think we must take it to be a regu¬ Sira. 44. lar |