therefore a bill of exceptions to evidence given before them will not lie, Rex. Prefton, ii. 827. pl. 791 110. The feffions cannot alter defects in an order which it is necessary to hear evidence to rectify, Rex v. Great Bed-win, ii. 828. pl. 793 III. The feffions, in ftating a cafe, muft and the facts, and not state the evidence, or give the reafons on which their judgment is founded, Rex v. South Cadbury, ii. 846. pl. 828 112. Same point, Rex v. Tedford, 11. 846. pl. 829 113. Same point, Rex v. .Mantley, ii. 853. pl. 831 114. But when the feffions fet out the whole reafon, and it is clearly wrong, the Court will quafh the order, Rex v. Gayer, i. 6. pl. 16 115. Same point, Rex v. Audley, i. 80. pl. 108 16. The fact of fraud must be pofitively found by the feffions, for the Court will not infer it, Rex v. Weston, ii. 153. pl. 832 17. But if they fate all the facts arifing from the evidence,the Court of King's Bench will examine the propriety of their conclufions, Rex . Tedford, ii. 846. pl. 829 118. But fee Rex u. Woodland, ii. 863. pl. 842 119. The Court of King's Bench will fend back a fpecial cafe in order that it may be amended as to a particular fact by new evidence, Rex v. Hitcham, ii. 862. pl. 840 120. Although the feffions ftate no cafe for the Court, Rex v. Margam, ii. 866. pl. 843 21. If a cafe be fent back to be reflated, the felons are not reftrained to hear evidence as to the defec

tive part only; but may go

122. But they are not bound to hear new evidence on any point of cafe fent back to be re-itated, Rex v. Bray, ii. 854. pl. 834

123. And the Court will not fend a cafe back to be re-flated because the feflions have improperly rejected evidence, Rex v. Nutley, ii. 856. pl. 835

124. Nor will they order a cafe to be re-ftated on affidavit that the clerk of the peace has not ftated the evidence truly, Rex v. Burgh, l. 860. pl. 836

125. But if the fact required to be flated be material and clearly eltablished, the Court will fend the cafe back to be re-flated by the minutes of the evidence, ii. 861 pl. 839

EXAMINATION.

1. An order of baftardy made on the examination of one justice only is void, Rex v. Beard, i. 425. pl.

2.

3.

4.

5.

558

Examination being a judicial aft, mut not only be made by two juftices, but it must be taken in the prefence of each other Rex v. West, i. 425. pl. 559 Same point,

Billings v. Prin i 426. pl. 562

But it is not neceflary to the validity of an order of filiation that the putative father fhould be prefent at the examination, Rex v. Upton Grey, i. 427. pl. 563

The examination refpecting a pauper's fettlement for the purpofe of making an order of removal must be by the two juftices who fign the order, Rex v. Wykes, ii. 768. pl.. 697

a. Page,

ii. 853. pl. 833

767. pl. 695

7. The juftices of one county cannot

make an order of removal on an examination taken by juftices of another county, Rex v. Coln St. Aldavins, ii. 768. pl. 700 8. And the examination must be taken and figned by the fame two juftices in the prefence of each other, Rex v. Howarth, ii. 769. pl. 701 9. See alfo Rex v. Forrest, i. 11. pl.

28

10. But an order of removal figned by two juftices feparately, and in different counties, is only voidable, and not void, Rex v. Stetfold, ii. 871. pl. 856

11. Qu. If two juftices take an examination of a pauper relative to his fettlement, but do not remove him, and the pauper afterwards die or become infane, Whether two other juftices may remove his family on fuch examination, Rex v. Erifwell, ii. 771. pl. 704 12. It is not neceffary that the perfon removed fhould have notice of or be prefent at the examination, ii. 767. pl. 694

EXECUTION.

A commitment under the vagrant act is a commitment in execution, i. 335. pl. 425

EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

3. By 17. Geo. 2. c. 38. f. 3. " if "any overfeer fhall die before the "expiration of his office, his exe"cutors or adminiftrators fhall "within forty days after his deceafe, deliver over all things I concerning his office to fome churchwarden or other overfeer "of the fame place, and pay out "of the affets all fums of money remaining due, which fuch over"feer received by virtue of his

office, before any of his other "debts are paid,” i. 257. pl. 266

4. The feffions, on appeal by the executor of an overfeer, flating an omiffion in the accounts of his teftator, cannot order the fucceeding overfeer to pay the fum omitted, although it is found to be due to the deceased, and the parish, at a public veitry called for that purpofe, have confented that it fhould be paid, Rex v. Ware, i. 272. pl. 299 5. By 20. Geo. 2. c. 45. f. 3. "an "apprentice who, on default of his "mafter or mirefs, has paid the "double duties impofed on non

payment of the single duties on "the indentures, may recover back "the apprentice-fee from the exe"cutors or administrators of such "mafter or mistrefs," i. 480. pl. 673 Same point, by 18. Geo. 2. c. 22. ·f. 25. i. 50a. pl. 692

7. The executors of a mafter fhall répay a proportion of the apprentice fee, as a debt due to the apprentice on fimple contract, Soam v. Bowden, i. 5oz. pl. 693

8. On a covenant to inftru& and maintain an apprentice, the executors or adminiftrators are liable, on a breach of it, Wadsworth v. Gay, i. 519. pl. 735 9. Executors and administrators are not obliged to provide for an ap prentice, Rex v. Pell, i. 520. pl. 737 10. Therefore an order of feffions that the executor fhall keep the teftator's apprentice is bad, Rex v Peck, i. 521. pl. 739 11. But by the custom of London an executor fhall place the teftator's apprentice to another master of the fame trade, ibid. i. 521. pl. 739 12. A widow before administration granted may affign her husband's apprentice, Rex v. Eaft Bridgford, i. 522. pl. 743

13. The intereft of a master in his apprentice is merely perfonal; and therefore the mafter's executor cannot maintain debt in a bond for the performance of the covenants in the indentures, unlefs " ехеси"tors" are named, Baxter v. Burfield, i. 523. pl. 745 14. An apprentice is not bound to ferve the executor of his deceased master, i. 524. text 15. Same point, Rex v. Eakring, i. 524. pl. 745 16. By 4. Ann. c. 19. f. 16. "the "widow of the master of any ship "or veffel to whom a parish-child

fhall have been put apprentice, "or the executor or administrator "of fuch matter, fhall have the fame

power of affigning fuch appren"tice as is given by 43. Eliz.” i. 570. pl. 816

VOL. I.

the mafter does not diffolve the contract; and the fervant, by fuch fervice, gains a fettlement in the fecond parish, Rex v. Ladack, ii. 460. pl. 412 22. If the adminiftratrix of a master confent that his apprentice hall go home to his father, yet if the indentures are not cancelled, he gains a fettlement under them, Rex v. Cheek, ii. 569. pl. 508

23. An apprentice affigned by his matter's widow before adminiftration granted, and turned over by the affignee under a parol agreement to a third mafter, gains a fettlement by fervice with fuch third mafter under the original indentures, Rex v. Eaft Bridgford, ii. 581. pl. 520

24. The next of kin to a perfon poffeffed of a leafe for years, who dies inteftate, does not gain a fettlement by living upon fuch eftate, unlefs his right to the term becomes vefted by his procuring letters of administration, South Sydenbam v. Lamerton, ii. 624. pl. 554 25. Same point, Rex v. Lower Swell, ii. 635. pl. 564 26. Same point, Rex v North Curry, ii. 644. pl. 573 27. The husband of an adminiftratrix who is intitled as a trustee to a leafe for years, is not removable from fuch eftate, Murfley. Grandborough, ii. 625. pl. 555

28. A fon who after his father's death lives on an estate for years during the remainder of a term, but does not take out adminiftration until after the term expires, does not gain a fettlement by refidence on fuch eftate, Rex v. Widworthy, ii. 629- pl. 560 29. A perfon intitled as one of the reprefentatives of an inteftate to part of a leafchold eftate occupied

by a tenant, and in the actual ena joyment of his proportion of the rents and profits, cannot gain a fettlement by refiding on fuch eftate, Rex v. Chew Magna, ii. 647. pl. 575

30. The mortgagee of a term for

15, to whom 30s. were due for intereft, and .18. 10s. more by bond and fimple contract, who, on the death of the mortgagor, takes out administration as a principal creditor, and thereby enters and becomes poffeffed of the eftate, gains a fettlement by refiding thereon for forty days, Rex v. Stockland, ii. 668. pl. 587

31. A father dies inteftate, by which his married daughter, then living with her husband under a certifi cate, becomes intitled to house and land in the certificate parish for the remainder of a term determinable on her death; the certificate man gains a fettlement by a refidence upon this eftate for forty days, after a poffeffion of twenty years, although no adminiftration was ever granted of his father-inlaw's effects, Rex v. Cold Afton, ii. 686. pl. 603

EXTRA-PAROCHIAL PLACES.

1. Overfeers may be appointed for an extra-parochial place, if it be A VILL, Anonymous, i. 23. pl. 40 2. For extra-parochial places are included within the 13. & 14. Car. 2. C. 12. f. 21. which orders that the poor fhall be provided for "within

the feveral and relpective town"flips and villages within the fe"veral counties," where, by reafon of the largenefs of parishes within the fame, they cannot reap the benefit of the 43. Eliz. c. 2. i. 23. pl. 41 3. Same point, Skillington v. Norton, i. 34. pl. 48 4. Same point, Dolting v. Stokeland, i. 68. pl. 93.

5. And accordingly overfeers have been appointed for a vill confifting of divers fubftantial freeholders, though it was part of no parish; had been time out of mind extraparochial, without church, chapel, or parochial rights; and had never had overfeers, Rex v. Rufford, i. 23. pl. 42 6. But the extra-parochial place mult be a vill or a reputed vill; and therefore where it was found that an extra-parochial place was not, nor ever was, a township or village, or had ever been reputed to be a township or village, it was held that overfeers could not be appointed, Rex v. Welbeck, i. 24. pl. 43. 7. So the fcites and areas of ancient cathedrals, colleges, and inns of court, being extra-parochial, and not vills either legally or by repu tation, are not liable to the appointment of overfeers, Rex v. Peterborough, i. 28. pl. 46 8. Therefore chambers in an inn of court are not rateable to the poor, Mexon v. Horfenoil, i. 97. pl. 145

9. The previous queftion upon this point always is, "Whether the "extra-parochial place fhall be "taken, in legal conftruction, to "be a vill," Dolting v. Stokeland, i. 68. pl. 93

10. An extra-parochial place confifting of a farm of about three hundred acres of land, and of two houfes belonging to and in the occupation of different perfons, of the value of £.300 a-year, and in which no overfeer has ever been appointed, is not a vill; for the definition of a vill, ex pluribus "manfionibus vicinata," muft mean more than two houfes, Rex v. Denham, i. 69. pl. 94 11. So an extra-parochial place once confifting of a capital manfionhoufe, the refidence of a nobleman, and three keepers lodges adjoining to the park, but converted into five farms, with each a dwellinghoufe, including the old lodges, in the occupation of different tenants, is not a vill, Rex v. Grafi. 69. pl. 95

ton,

12. But if an extra-parochial place be reputed a vill, though it confift only of a manfion-house and a farm-houfe, occupied by different perfons, and both of them, with the eftate thereto belonging, the property of one perfon, yet overfeers may be appointed, Rex v. Exford, i. 588. pl. 849

13. An extra-parochial place locally fituated within a parish may be charged in aid of the parish, Rex v. Boroughfen, i. 307. pl. 369 14. So alfo the inhabitants of an extra-parochial place may be taxed to the relief of an adjoining parish, Rex v. Clarendon Park, i. 309. pl. 372

15. Same point, Rex v. Beroughfen, i. 310. pl. 375 16. But fee Rex v. Holbecke, i. 629.

pl. 803