lar proceeding. And fo it was held in the cafe of the Rexv. CLEGG. King v. Peckham, Carib. 406 (a). The Court faid, Where a (a)5.C.5 Mod. fummons was necefiary, they would prefume there was 321. one, unless the contrary appeared; for all jurifdictions S. C. Comb. are prefumed prima facie to act according to law. -FOR-439TESCUE, Juftice. It is certain, that natural justice requires, that no man thall be condemned without notice; for which reafon I think the order will be good, because it does not appear to us that he had no notice: are we to fuppofe the feffions have proceeded contrary to right and juftice, and that too in a cafe where they have undoubted jurifdiction? In the cafe of fervants wages the jurifdiction is given only in hufbandry, and yet orders have been held good, where it did not appear the fervice was in husbandry; for the Court said, they would intend it so, unless the contrary appeared.-PRATT, Chief Juftice. I do Salk. 442. not fee to what purpose we exercife a fuperintendency over all inferior jurifdictions, unlefs it be to infpcct their proceedings, and fee whether they are regular or not. have often heard it faid, that nothing thall be prefumed one way or the other in an inferior jurifdiction. And as to the cafe of wages, it was always wondered at, and in my LORD PARKER's time it was actually contradicted in the cafe of the King v. Helling (b).-Adjournatur. v. Helling (b). Adjournatur. Trin. (b) Strange, 8. 12. Geo. it was moved and confirmed without oppofition. I was made on 610. Rex v. Teriam, Mich. 13. Geo. 1. MSS.-LEE moved Order of feffions to quash an order of bastardy by two juftices to charge recites that it the defendant with keeping a baftard begotten on a feme full hearing, the covert in the hufband's abfence, on the evidence of a cer- merits therefore tificate from a captain in the army that the husband was must have come at that time in Ireland, and the concurring evidence of before them, the woman's confeffion that defendant was the father, and their dif charge is con The cafe was thus: The defendant appealed from the clufive. order of two juftices to the feffions, who quafhed the first order. The fame two juftices made a fecond order on S.C. Stra. 716. the grounds of the firft, and it was infifted the order was void; for according to the cafe in 1. Vent. 89. if an or- s. C. 1. Sef. Caf. der of two juftices be revoked by appeal at feffions, the 272. perfon is abfolutely difcharged, and the juftices have no power to make a new order. It was aufwered, that if feflions difcharge the order for form, a new order might be ade.-SED PER CURIAM. Nothing of that kind fhall be intended. The order of feffions recites that this order was made on full hearing, and therefore the merits must have come before them, and the difcharge by the feffions on the appeal is conclufive: and the defendant being in court was difcharged. 611. Rex S. C. Ld. Ray. 1423 A fecond fef fions cannot vacate an order made by two juftices and confirmed by a former fer fions. the quarter feffions. 611. Rex v. Arundel, Trinity, 1. Geo. 2. 1. Seff. Caf. 234. -Two juftices make an order, that the defendant fhall pay a fum in grofs, and alfo 2s. a week fo long as the child fhall be chargeable. The party appeals to the feffions, who confirm the order. At a fubfequent feffions, the father of the baftard defired to have the keeping of it, and that the payment of the 2s. a week fhould ceafe; which the fecond feffions ordered. Motion was made to quafh this laft order of feffions, becaufe in this cafe they had no jurifdiction. And THE COURT held, that the fecond feffions had no authority to order the fubftraction of the 2s. a week; and the order was quafhed, because it was made out of time (being three years after the appeal), and therefore the juftices had no jurifdiction. An original or612. Rex v. Greaves, Eafter Term, 21. Geo. 3. Douglas der of bastardy 632.-An original order of baftardy was made at the may be made at Nottinghamshire feffions, (Eafter 1780), which having been removed into this court, and a rule granted to fhew caufe why it should not be quafhed, the Court defired the counfel against the order to begin.-BALDWIN ftated the principal objection to be, that the feffions have no original jurifdiction in making orders of bastardy, and mentioned Dr. Burn's opinion and reafoning on that (a) Burn's Juft. point (a), and Wood's and Pridgeon's Cafe in Bulfirode (b). 13th ed. vol. i. -HOWARTII, in fupport of the order, faid, there were four or five cafes which had decided that the ftatute of (5) 2.Bult.355. Car. 1. (c) gives the feffions an original jurifdiction.S. C. Cro. Car.-BULLER, Juftice, read, from Bott (d), Slater's Cafe (e); 341, 350. and and the Court were clearly of opinion, that the feffions ante, pl. 605. have an original jurifdiction (f).-The order confirmed. (c) 3. Car. I. c. 4. (d) Ante, pl. 604. (e) Cro. Car. 470. P. 195. If a court of general quarter felions next atter an order of bastardy 613. Rex v. Chichefter, Mich. Term, 30. Geo. 3. 3. Term Rep. 496.-An order was made by two juftices on the 27th of March 1789, adjudging James Lover to be the reputed father of a baftard; against which order Lover quath the order, appealed to the general quarter feffions held on the 22d of this Court will April, where it was quafhed; and no cafe was referved a court of gene- for the opinion of this Court. But both the orders being ral fefions inter- now returned by certiorari, ERSKINE moved to quafh the order of feffions, becaufe that court had no jurifdiction unless that ap- to hear the appeal. The party grieved fhould have appealed, under the ftatute 18. Eliz. c. 3. to the next gene not intend that vened; and pear, the order will be confirmed, [f] Vide Rex v. Clegg, M. 8. Geo. 1. 1. Str. 475. ante, pl. 6c9. where an original order made at feffous was confirmed. It was not objected to on that ground, but, on the contrary, the authority to make fuch an order was admitted. ral Rex v. ral (a) feffions; and non conftat but that a coure of general feffions intervened between the 27th of March, when the CHICHSTER, original order was made, and the 22d of April, when the general quarter feffions were held. And he relied on Rex v. Shaw, Salk. 483. (b), where the order of feffions was (6) Carth. 455 quafhed for this very reafon.-LORD KENYON, Chiefs. C. Juftice, (topping MINGAY on the other fide) obferved, Ante, p. 442. that the cafe cited did not appear to be one of the most pl. 602. authentic in Salkeld's Reports. But it is a general rule that every intendment thall be made to fupport an order of juftices (c); and as it does not appear that the general (e) Vid. 2. Str. quarter feffions held on the 22d of April were not the fef- 998, Salk. fions next following the 27th of March, we will not pre- 442, & 485. fume it for the purpofe of quafhing the order of feffions. R. v. Gregory. -Order of feffions affirmed. XI. Of quafhing orders of baflardy. the father is 614. Rex v. Matthews, Hilary, 8. Will. 3. 2. Salk. 475. Order of baf-Two exceptions were taken to an order of baftardy: tardy not to be That it is not faid that the child is likely to become quashed, unless chargeable; and, That the defendant was ordered to pay prefent. eighteen pence a-week indefinitely without limiting a certain time.-SHOWER anfwered, that no order relating to a baftard child can be quashed, unlefs the reputed father is prefent in court; which was allowed: but the Court granted a rule to fhew caufe, and quafhed the or der upon the fecond exception, but over-ruled the first, it being evident that every baftard child is likely to become chargeable. 615. Rex v. Tenant, Mich. Term, 13. Geo. 1. Strange, After defendant 716. Upon an order of baftardy the defendant appealed is difcharged at to the feffions, where upon a full hearing he was dif- fellions a new order of bastardy charged: afterwards the fame juftices make a new order cannot be made. upon him.-And LEE moved to quash it, the defendant being by the former order of feffions abfolutely difcharged (d). And of that opinion was THE COURT, and (d) 1. Ven. 59. Cro. Car. 350. quafhed the last order. L. Raym. 1423. 562. Rex v. Gibfon, Hilary, 33. Geo. 2. 1. Black. Rep. on quashing an 198.-MR. NORTON moved to quash an order of bastardy, order of bafwhich being indefenfible was accordingly done, the de- tardy, the father fendant entering into a recognizance to abide the order of against an order of removal, requires (a) The 18. Eliz. c. 3. requires the appeal to be made to the next general feffions; the 13. and the 14. Car. 2. feffions, 6. 12. f. 2. which gives an appeal feffions fhall enter into a recognizance. REX V. GIBSON. Order of baftardy tiorari in due time, may he jections on the face of it, feffions below; which was the reafon, the Court faid; why the perfonal appearance of the defendant was in thefe cafes always required. 617. Rex v. Stanley, Eafier Term, 22. Geo. 3. Cald. 172. removed by terTwo juftices of the Weft Riding of the county of Fork, by an order dated the 29th of May 1781, adjudge Thomas quafhed for ob- Stanley, of Workfop, in the county of Nottingham, to be the reputed father of a baftard child, begotten upon Ann Storey, of Anfton, in the faid Weft Riding; " which faid without a pre-child is now become chargeable, &c. and is likely so vious appeal to the feffions. "to continue;" and then proceed to order maintenance, &c. This order was ferved upon the defendant on the 31ft of June. The next feffions were at Midfummer on the 18th of July. Upon an appeal to this order at the Michaelmas feflions holden by adjournment on the 10th of October, that court difmiffed the appeal, upon the ground of its not having been made at the feffions next after the fervice of the order. In the enfuing Michaelmas Term a certiorari iffued, directed to the keepers of the peace and juftices for the faid Weft Riding, to remove all orders upon this fubject made by the faid juftices. Upon the return of thefe orders, a rule was obtained to fhew caufe why the order of feffions made on the 10th of October 1781 fhould not be quafhed.-CHAMBRE objected, that the defendant could not under this rule go into the original order, the order of feffions, which alone was moved to be quafhed, having only difiniffed the appeal and not confirmed the original order.-BULLER, Juftice. Though there may be a flight impropriety in the form, if in effect the order of fefiions confirms the original order, the motion to quath the order of feffions is well enough.-CHAMBRE now fhewed caufe against this rule; and infifted, that till fomething to raife a contrary prefumption was fhewn, the intendment of the Court was always in favour of the acts of every inferior jurifdiction: that the order of feffions in the present inftance not being objected to as defective in point of form, and not being fpecial, but fimply difmiffing the appeal against the original order of two juftices, could not be quafhed: that there having, in point of law, been no appeal, there ought not to have been any order whatsoever made at the feffions; and that, if any objection was made to the original order, the certiorari ought to have been directed to the two juftices to have returned it. And he contended, fuppofing Ms. WALLACE fhould, as he had intimated, move to amend, by making it a rule to fhew caufe why the order of two juftices, which had been appealed againft, fhould not be quathed, or thould move an original rule to quath that order, order, that in either way, and however shaped and pointed against fuch order, the application must now be out of STANLEY. time; as the ftat. 13. Geo. 2. c. 18. f. 5. requires, that the "certiorari be applied for in fix calendar months next af"ter proceedings fhall be had:" that it had been determined in the cafe of (a) Rex v. Baker, that thefe fix (a) M. 27. Car. months are to be computed from the fervice of the order, 2. 1675. which in the prefent inftance was before the Midfummer 3. Keb. 551. feffions; and that the defendant, having neglected to appeal in time at the proper place, could not now come per faltum, and avail himself of an objection in this court. WALLACE, in fupport of the rule, infifted, however this might be, had he now fought relief upon the merits, that he was at liberty to take any objection that arose upon the face of any legal inftrument before the Court: that though the certiorari hrad not iffued to the two juftices to return their own order, but to the feffions, the two juftices having returned their order to the feffions and it having been filed there, the certiorari had been properly directed to the place where that order in fact was: that the original order of the two juftices had been returned: that it was here and no matter how that the objection was open to him, and was fatal; it was, 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 that the certiorari had been moved early in Michaelmas Term, long before the expiration of the fix months; and that to whomfoever it was directed, the return contained and had brought before the Court every thing neceffary to his purpofe.-CHAMBRE now infifted, that the notice of the motion for the certiorari was irregular, as it only ftated that application would be made to the Court after the expiration of fix days from the time of the fervice, without fpecifying any particular day'; fo that the juftices and the party were deprived of their opportunity of fhewing caufe against its iffuing, which the act intended they fhould have.-WALLACE. It is no more uncertain than notice of motion on the firft day of Term, or fo foon after as counfel can be heard.-LORD MANSFIELD. The notice is fufficient.-WALLACE. That as to the appeal being too late, no appeal was in any fuch cafe neceffary at any time: that it was ftated on the other fide, that under the circumftances the court of quarter-feffions had no jurifdiction, and even that it was no appeal that this was an objection therefore upon the record, and not upon the merits.-THE COURT feemed to think, that if the defendant had meant to take exceptions G g to |