The complaint may be made by others as well as the parish. But a com 560. Rex v. Buckall, Mich. 3. Geo. 2. 1. Bar. K. B. 261. This was an order of baftardy made by two juftices. It was objected, that the order did not appear to be made on complaint of the parish. THE COURT faid, that the 18. Eliz. c. 3. on which statute this order is founded, does not require that the parifh fhould complain, but gives the juftices power to make fuch order on complaint of any other. The order was confirmed. 561. Rex v. Nottingham, Eafter Term, 10. Geo. 2. MSS. plaint must be An order of baftardy must be made on complaint of the parish where the child is born, and it must be stated in the order to have been made on fuch complaint. made. Both juftices a woman is examined and committed for not filiating a baftard child. 562. Billings v. Prinn and Another, Trinity Term, 15. must be prefent Geo. 3. 2. Bl. Rep. 10.7.-Trefpafs and falle imprifonat the fame time ment for committing the plaintiff to bridewell for refufing and place when to filiate a baftard child. She was examined feverally, at feparate times (but in the fame day), and in feparate places, by the two defendants, who were juftices of the peace for Gloucestershire; and they feparately figned the warrant of commitment. On trial at the laft affizes, verdict for the plaintiff with 51. damages.-GROSE moved for a new trial, alledging that it was fufficient under the statute of 7. Jac. 1. if the two juftices joined in and confented to the commitment, but that they might examine and adjudge the matter, and fign the warrant, feparately.-WALKER, contra. Where two or more are required to do any act, they must meet together; for otherwife what they refolve on is the mind of individuals, not of the affembly: a dean and chapter must give their voices collegialiter, not feparatim. Affet may be by individuals, Confent by the body. In powers delegated to two juftices, facts must be fettled by one united examination, law muft refult from one united deliberation. This has ever been the doctrine with refpe&t to juftices of the (a) Plowd.293. peace (a).-DE GREY, Chief Justice. This cafe is unforDalton, c. 6. on tunately too clear to bear an argument. There is no ufe the very fubject. in appointing two or more perfons to exercife judicial powers, unlels they are to act together (b). Separate exaAndrews, 238. minations by different magiftrates may produce different Salk. 73. 568, facts: on which then is the adjudication to proceed? It Burr. Sett. Caf. is exceedingly clear, that in cafe of an action thus brought to try the validity of the commitment, it cannot be fupForrest, ante, ported by law. GOULD, BLACKSTONE, and NARES, 11. pl. 28. Justices, of the fame opinion.-Rule difcharged. 6. Mod. 180. 5. Mod. 322. 137 (b) See Rex v. 564. Res validity of an mination of the 563. Rex v. Inhabitants of Upton Gray, Trinity Term, It is not ne23. Geo. 3. Cald. 308.-Two juftices adjudge Walter Na- ceffary to the tion of the parish of Froyle in the county of Southampton, order of filiafervant, to be the reputed father "of a female baftard tion that the "child begotten on Sarah Arundell, and that the faid putative father "child was chargcable to the parish of Upton Gray in hould be pre"the faid county; and that he fhould pay, &c. and fent at the ex"alfo one fhilling weekly, &c." The feffions on ap- woman before peal quafhed this order, and ftated as follows: Upon the two juftices hearing the order (as above stated) read, and what was alledged by counfel thereupon, and it not appearing upon the face of the order that the faid Sarah Arundell was examined in the prefence of the faid Walter Nation at the time of making the faid order, this court is of opinion, and doth adjudge, that the faid recited order ought to be quafhed; and the fame is hereby quafhed accordingly.MINGAY fhewed caufe in fupport of the order of feffions; and admitted, that he could not, upon any general principle or authority, maintain, that it was neceffary to the validity of an order of filiation, that the examination of the woman must be had in the prefence of the putative father. But he contended, that the reafon given by the feffions, however erroneous, would at moft be confidered as furplufage: that all courts, having jurifdiction over the fubject upon which they had pronounced, were intitled to every intendment in their fayour; and that there might have been other reafons.LORD MANSFIELD. They give none. The prefence of the putative father is not neceffary before the juftices out of the feffions; and as the feffions have stated this and no other to have been the foundation of their proceeding, we cannot prefume that they went upon any other.-WILLES and BULLER, fuftices, concurred: Lord Commiffioner ASIIHURST was abfent. Rule abfolute, order of feffions quashed, and original order affirmed. VI. The fummons and commitment. 564. Rex v. Hawkins, Trinity, 7. Geo. 1. Poor Sett. 127. An order of In the order of bastardy it was not faid that the defen- baftardy need dant was fummoned, or had notice, or was heard.-PER not state that CURIAM. It is not requifite where the order is made by two juftices; otherwife, if it had been originally made at feffions. the party was fummoned. 565. Res An order of mened, and thew 565. Rex v. Glegg, Mich. Term, 7. Gro. 1. 8. Mod. 3. baftardy, whe-The defendant Glegg was by the order of two juftices ther made by two juftices or of peace adjudged to be the putative father of three baftard at the feffions, children, and ordered to pay, &c. which order was conought to ftate firmed on appeal to the feffions; and both the faid orders that the reputed being removed into the King's Bench by certiorari, it was father was fum infifted in Glegg's behalf, that the order made by the two the cause of the juftices was irregular, because it did not fet forth that fummons; and Glegg was duly fummoned to appear before them; it only not merely fet fet forth that he had notice to appear, but did not thew for forth that he had what cause, and therefore was not a regular fummons. notice to appear. -THE COURT was of opinion, that if Glegg was not Sed vide S. C. poft, fummoned to appear, fhewing for what caufe, they might quafh this order; for it is against the law of England that a man fhould be impeached without notice to make his defence, and all inferior jurifdictions ought to fhew that they have proceeded according to that power which they have by law. It is admitted, that the juftices of peace have an original jurifdiction in cafes of baftardy, and that their orders, if regular, fhall be conclufive; but if irregular, as this is, they fhall be quafhed.-THE COURT ordered, that the parifh fhould have time to fhew whether Glegg was regularly fummoned to appear before the two justices who made the order. The reputed father muft be fummoned before an order of filiation can 566. Rex v. Buchall, Mich. Term, 3. Geo. 2. 1. Bar. K. B. 261.-This was an order of baitardy made by two juftices confirmed by an order offeffions.-Mr. STRANGE objected, that it was appointed that an attachment fhould go against the defendant for having difobeyed a former order, and he fubmitted that the court of feffions have no authority to iffue fuch procefs Mr. YEATES, on the other fide, obferved, that although the word “attachias“ was in the order, it was to be underfood no more than a common capias; but admitting that it was, it is laid down in Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, that every court of record may grant an attachment.--THE COURT, however, thought this was a good objection to the order; and it was accordingly quathed. 567. Rex v. Cotton, Trinity Term, 6. & 7. Gro. 2. 1. Seff. Cafes, 179.-An information was moved for against the defendant, who, with another justice, made an order of baftardy upon one Fitzgerald, without fummonbe made; for ing him to appear before them to make his defence. without fum- Upon appeal to the feffions he was acquitted, and put to mons there can great expences; which it was infifted was contrary to be no legal exa- natural juftice.-MR. JUSTICE PAGE. No man in an office mination. office can be fuppofed to be fo ignorant as not to know it is against natural juftice to convict a man without a fummons the examination ought to be fo made that the truth may appear; and this must be by examining both fides, otherwife it is partial. The fcandal, the expence, and the diforder in Mr. Fitzgerald's family, are things that ought to be confidered here was no taking by warrant, and therefore an action of falfe imprisonment would not lie; and this is the only method can be used to punish the juftice.-MR. JUSTICE PROBYN. The principal objection about a fummons is right in law and in reafon poffibly an action on the cafe might be framed; there may poffibly have been only an error in judgment, and it is hard to grant an information.—MR. JUSTICE LEE. If this was ftrictly a conviction, against which no appeal lies, an information ought to be granted; but the matter is not fo very strong in the cafe of orders. -And the rule was difcharged. REY V. COTTON. 568. Rex v. Neal and Another, Eafter Term, 8. Geo. 2. But the fummons MSS.-Motion in the king's bench for an informa- may be by a third justice. tion against the defendants, two juftices of Devonshire, for making an order on one Nicholas Mould, adjudging him to be the putative father of a baftard child without fummoning him, and alfo for refufing to hear his witneffes. On fhewing caufe, it appeared that he was fum- S.C. Annalley's moned by a third juftice, which THE COURT held to be Rep. 112. fufficient.-LORD HARDWICKE, Chief Juftice. If the party, being fummoned, will not attend himself, there is no reafon the juftices thould hear any defence made for him; for if that were allowed, no offender of this fort would appear: therefore the juftices in this cafe acted right. And it is but as this Court does, when orders of baftardy are removed hither by certiorari: for we never allow any exceptions to be taken to the order, unless the party attend in perfon (a), that the Court may take care (4) Sed vide of him, and make him indemnify the parish if the order ante, Rex v. is good. VII. The bond of indemnity and fecurity. Upton Gray, 569. Reg. v. Chaffey, Eafter Term, 2. Ann. Ld. Ray. 858. The justices -An order was made by two justices of Wilts against cannot compel the defendant for being the putative father of a baftard the putative father to give child. An objection was taken, that it ordered the de- fecurity until fendant to give fecurity for payment of the fum by them he has made impofed for the maintenance of the child, when it did default. not S. C. 3. Salk. REX V. CHAFFEY. A bond given and to the re puted father of not appear that the defendant had difobeyed the order in point of payment; and by 18. Eliz. c. 3. an order for fecurity cannot be made till after contempt; and for this reafon the order, as to this part of it, was quashed. G 570. Hulland v. Malken and Briftow, Trinity Term, 33by a third perfon 34. Geo. 2. 2. Wilf. 126. Debt upon a bond. Defendants craved oyer of the condition, which was, that if they fhould indemnify the plaintiff, &c. as to a baftard child, then the obligation to be void; otherwife, &c. from all charges and then they plead that the child is an infant in the refpecting fuch arms of its mother, and that while the child and mother a baftard child, to fave him feited, if fuch under feven took it from the care and keeping of the obligor. child, is for- was with them (which was four days), they took care father be called of it, and provided for it every thing, but that the moupon by the ther hath taken away the child from them, and that the parish to main child hath not fince been delivered to them by plaintiff : tain the child, Et hoc, &c. The plaintiff replies, that it is true that the although it was child was carried away by the mother, who for fome time years of age, provided for it; but for replication fays, that it afterwards and the mother became chargeable to the parish, and that he the plaintiff has been obliged to pay fuch charges to the parish, whereby he is damnified: Et hoc, &c. The defendant rejoins, that the child was an infant under feven years of age, and in the keeping of the mother, and that it was not in their power to take it from her and keep it, fo as to indemnify plaintiff. To this the plaintiff demurred, and thewed for caufe, that the rejoinder is argumentative, and neither confeffes or avoids, nor traverses or denies, and is alfo a departure from the plea. The cafe was this: An Parker having charged the plaintiff with being the father of a bastard child, he was obliged to give bond to indemnify the parith; but in order to get rid of the child, and to be clear of the parifh, he paid the defendants 141. in confideration whereof they entered into the faid bond to indemnify the plaintiff against all damages, charges, &c. which he might be liable and put to on account of the faid child.-Upon arguing this cafe, THE WHOLE COURT were clearly of opinion, that the plea was bad. They faid, this was a general bond to indemnify the plaintiff as to the child against all the world; and they can plead nothing but one of these two things, either that the plaintiff hath not been damnified, or (in excufe) if he has been damnified, he himself was the occafion thereof, neither of which they have done: the mother's taking away the child is no excufe at all. Moreover they faid, the replication had fhewn how the plaintiff was damnified; and the rejoinder in effect had admitted it, because it had not denied it. And they faid, We need not in this cafe fay, whether |