CHAP. I.

Overseers of
of the Poor.

How to be styled, fee pl. 1.-Who, pl. 4.-
In what Manner, or by what Inftrument,
pl. 7.-By whom and in what Number,
pl. 8.-At and for what Time, pl. 13.-
Of and for what Place to be appointed,
pl. 18.-Appeal against the Order ap-
pointing them, pl. 24. See 43 Elix. 6 2

"R

6. 2.

EX v. Inhabitants of St. George's, T. 9. G. Must be appointFort. 320. The nomination of overfeers of the ed overfeers in poor, was, that fuch by name, were appointed to express terms, fet the poor to work, &c. mentioning the several duties in the act, but did not in exprefs words appoint them overfeers; and for that reason this nomination was quafhed.

the

poor

2 R. v. Great Marlow, T. 13 G. Foley 5. Two Subftantial Juftices in Eafter week appoint . and B. overfeers of houicholders. of the town of Great Marlow. On appeal to the feffions, fuggefting that C. had a majority of the parifhioners, the feffions appoints B. and C. overfeers. It was now objected that the appointment of the feffions did not mention, that they were fubftantial householders;

G 2

*

* 2 L. Raymond

1394.

and

There, or in the parish, and in the body of the order,

Perfons occafi

onally refident

ought not to be

appointed over

A woman can

Overicer.

and that the Juftices at feffions could make no new appointment, there being one before by two Juftices of the Peace. The Court thought the appointment of the feffions to be bad on both accounts, and ordered it to be quafhed. Two exceptions were then taken to the order of Juftices, firft, that it was an appointment for a town, and not for a parish; but was not allowed ; and 2dly, that it was an appointment for one whole year; but the court faid it was well enough, and that if they should quafh it, no appointment of this kind would ftand.

3. Cafe of the overfeers of Weobly, M. 20 G. 2. 2 Str. 1261. Two fets of overfeers were appointed, and both quashed; one because the perfons appointed were defcribed only as principal inhabitants, inftead of purfuing the words of the ftatute 43 Eliz. c. 2. which are fubflantial householders; and the other because it only called them fubftantial householders, without adding there or in the parish, and this too not in the body of the appointment (as it ought to be) but only in the direction at the foot of it. Same refolution, Rex v. Morral, M. 7. G. 2. MSS.

Who may be appointed Overseers, fee 2 G. 3.

C. 20.

4. R. v. Moor, 2 W. & M. Carth. 161. The defendant was a citizen of London, but refided in the fummer at Hornsey, and was chosen by the parishioners overfeer of that parish. Upon appeal to the feffions he was discharged, but it not appearing upon the order that he was appointed by two Juftices (v. 43 Eliz.) the Court of B. R. would not quafh the order, becaufe nobody was affected by it. The Court thought fuch practice of appointing perfons only refident for a time, ought to be difcouraged, and in Com. Digeft. 3 V. 84. it is faid that fuch perfons ought not to be chofen, and refers to this report of Carth. Vid. Dalton's Juftice 216. c. 73. f. 2.

5. R. v. Chardstock, E. 10 An. Vin. Ab. title. Poor not be appointed 415. Powell Juftice declared, that a woman is not to be an overfeer of the poor, and that there can be no custom to put her in because of her being an housekeeper, because it is an officer created by act of parliament, Parker Chief Juftice faid, The Juftices had done well in refufing to nominate a woman, and directed application to be made to the Juftices to nominate another perfon,

and

and that if they refused, the Court fhould be moved the

next term for a Mandamus.

feer?

6. R. v. Gayer, H. 30 G. 2. Burr. 245. Gayer Quære, can an halfpay officer being appointed overfeer of the poor, appealed to the or a Juftice of feffions, who made the following order. It appearing Peace, be apunto this court, that Gayer was and is an acting Juftice pointed overof the Peace for the county, and alfo a lieutenant of Marines on halfpay, and that there are other fufficient and fubftantial houfeholders within the faid parish, this court doth therefore vacate and make void, &i. Lord Mansfield. The general queftion relating to the compa tibility of offices, and the power of appointing deputies, is unneceffary to be confidered upon the prefent matter. The feffions on appeal have a right to exercise the fame latitude of difcretion, in judging who are fit to be nominated overfeers as the two Juftices had. They have given their opinion thut Mr. Gayer was not a proper perfon to be appointed overfeer. They are not obliged to give any reason for their opinion, because the legislature has intrufted them on an appeal, with the power or authority of appointing overfeers. If the feffions had given no reason, their order had been undoubtedly good; we must have presumed that they acted upon proper grounds: It is true that where the whole reason is fet out and is clearly wrong, we may and ought to quash an order manifeftly made by mistake; but then the bad reafon must appear to have been their only inducement: If there may have been other grounds they fhould be prefumed fufficient; and the order ought not to be fet afide, because fome of the reafons unneceffarily given appear to be bad. Here the whole reafon is not given; they fay there were other perfons qualified, and fuppofing Mr. Gayer liable to ferve the office, they might think him not fo proper as many others. It does not appear, that they confidered him as exempted, or difqualified from being overfeer, and that they vacated the order of Juftices on that account, as illegal: The execution of a difcretionary power, when it is not neceffary to give a reafon, ought to be fupported, unless the whole reafon is fet forth, and is manifeftly wrong: Order of feffions confirmed.

Must be appointed under the hands and feals

In what Manner, or by what Inftrument.
See Stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2. § 1.

7. R. v. Arnold, T. 4 G. Str. 101. At Nifi prius in Middlefex before Pratt Ch. J. Indictment against defenof two Juftices. dants, for that they being churchwardens, and two others, overfeers in making a poor's rate, &c. the Ch. J. held the profecutor to fhew an appointment of the overseers under the hands and feals of two Juftices, as the statute requires, and he rejected parole evidence, becaufe, he faid, it must be produced, that he might judge whether it was a fufficient appointment; he quoted Willoughby, and Difey in C. B. where a will entered in the fpiritual court books, to be delivered out to the executor was refused to be read, till application and refufal of the executor was proved, and the fame in Sir Edward Seymor's cafe as to a deed acquitted.-Deffendant acquitted,

Seffions have not

By

whom, and in what Number to be ap pointed.

8. R. v. Flag and Chelmerton, M. 13 G. Fol, 8. An an original jurif-order was made by two Juftices of Peace to appoint two point overfeers. perfons overfeers of the poor of these two vills; they appeal to the feffions, who appoint that these two vills

diction to ap

fhall choose feveral overfeers for the future, and that they fhall collect feverally in their vills; and when they See pl. 12.4 have collected, then to diftribute thofe affeffments jointly as before; and confirmed the order of Juftices. The first order of Juftices was now quashed, because it did not mention, that these two were fubftantial inhabitants or householders, and the order of feffions was quafhed, becaufe the feffions had no original jurifdiction to appoint

Part of a parish

is within the

overseers.

9. R. v. Butler and another, E. 8 G. 3. The parish jurifdiction of a of the Holy Trinity in Guilford, lies partly within the jucorporation, Qu. rifdiction of the corporation of Guilford, and partly out of who fhall apit. On Eafter Sunday 1767, about half paft II at night, the point, &c. Mayor of Guilford, and one Juftice for the county at large, made an appointment of two overfeers for this parish, And on Eafter Monday about noon, two of the aldermen of the corporation, being Juftices of the Peace for the corporation, appointed two other perfons, the present defendants,

defendants, to be overfeers for the fame parish. This
laft appointment was certified into the King's Bench; and
the Solicitor General moved to quafh it; because the
Mayor alone had power by 43 Eliz. c. 2, and that his
appointment, though in fact antecedent, yet, whether
antecedent or not, fuperfeded the other appointment;
and that its being made on a Sunday was no objection
to it, (which was allowed by the court,) By the
court: Quafhing an appointment, where the fault
does not appear upon the face of the appointment,
is ex debito juftitia. But where the fault does appear
upon the face of the appointment, there the party has an-
other remedy by action, and quafhing is not ex debita
juftitia. Of this laft kind is the prefent appointment,
which we will not quafh. This is not a proper cafe in
which an appointment may be quafhed; the year is over,
and the defendants might be ruined by actions. But we
have no difficulty upon the principal queftion. The fta-
tute Eliz. gives power to Juftices in, as well as out of
feffions; and therefore cannot apply to the head officer
of a corporation only, for he cannot confitute a feffions
alone. The expreffion "Juftice or Juftices" may mean
to comprize the cafe where there is but one Justice; fuch
a power is dangerous to be trufted in the hands of one
perfon, and was never claimed before. Rule for quashing
the appointment difcharged.

10. R. v. Befland, 19 G. 2. MSS. 2. Two Justices
made an appointment of the defendant, to be an overseer
of the poor of Westwood Yates, in the county of Dorfet;
and the appointment was confirmed by the feffions on ap
peal. It was moved to quafh the appointment, and the
order confirming it. Lee, Ch. J. The objection is, that
the Juftices here appointed only one fingle overfeer, and
not two, according to the 43 Eliz. But this is no di-
rection as to the manner of nomination. The question Appointment of
then is, Whether, having appointed one overfeer, they one overeer
have acted within the authority of that ftatute. It don't
appear but there may be another appointment by ano-
ther order, and the court cannot fay they have not ap
pointed another; and if they have only appointed one,
you may have a Mandamus for them to appoint another?
I don't fee but this is a good appointment. In R. v. Har
man, the court were very tender in overturning that or-
der, and strongly inclined to think that the order was
good; and I am certain, there are many parts of the
kingdom where a fingle overfeer is appointed. Denison