A fecord fef

fions cannot vacate an order

made by two juftices and confirmed by a former fffions.

611. Rexv. 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 last 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 or- 612. 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 feflions, (Eafter 1780), which having

the quarter

feffions.

(a) Burn's Juft.

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 stated the principal objection to be, that the feffions have no original jurifdiction in making orders of baftardy, and mentioned Dr. Burn's opinion and reafoning on that point (a), and Wood's and Pridgeon's Cafe in Bulftrade (b). 13th ed. vol. i. -HOWARTH, in fupport of the order, faid, there were four or five cafes which had decided that the ftatute of (6) 2.Bulft.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. (6) 3. Car. I. c. 4• (d) Ante, pl. 604. (e) Cro. Car. 470.

P. 195.

If a court of

general quarter Seffions next alter 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 quash 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 feffions inter- now returned by certiorari, ERSKINE moved to quafh the order of feffions, because that court had no jurifdi&tion 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

unless that ap

pear, the order will be consmed,

REX V.

ral (a) feffions; and non conftat but that a court of general feffions intervened between the 27th of March, when the CHICHESTER. 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 feflions was (6) Carth. 455quathed for this very reafon.-LORD KENYON, Chiefs. c. Juftice, (topping MINGAY on the other fide) obferved, Ante, p.442. pl. 602. that the cafe cited did not appear to be one of the most authentic in Salkeld's Reports. But it is a general rule that every intendment fhall be made to fupport an order of juftices (c); and as it does not appear that the general (c) Vid. 2. Str. quarter feffions held on the 22d of April were not the fef- 998, Sak. fions next following the 27th of March, we will not pre- 442, & 485. fume it for the purpofe of quafhing the order of fellions. R. v. Gregory. -Order of feffions affirmed.

XI. Of quafhing orders of baftardy.

614. Rex v. Matthews, Hilary, 8. Will. 3. 2. Salk. 475. Order of bas -Two exceptions were taken to an order of baftardy: tardy not to be quafhed, unless That it is not faid that the child is likely to become the father is 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 quafhed, unless the reputed father is prefent in court; which was allowed: but the Court granted a rule to fhew caufe, and quafhed, the order upon the fecond exception, but over-ruled the first, it being evident that every bastard 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 discharged at to the feffions, where upon a full hearing he was dif- fins a new order of bastardy charged: afterwards the fame juftices make a new order. cannot be made. upon him.-And LEE moved to quafh it, the defendant being by the former order of feffions abfolutely dif charged (d).And of that opinion was THE COURT, and (d) 1. Ven. 59. Cro. Car. 350. quathed the laft order,

L. Raym. 1423

bib. Rex v. Gibfon, Hilary, 33. Geo. 2. 1. Black. Rep. on quathing 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

(a) The 18. Eliz. c. 3. requires the appeal to be made to the next general Lions; the 13. and the 14. Car. 2.

12. f. 2. which gives an appeal

against an order of removal, requires it to be made to the next quarten feffiont.

fhall enter into a recognizance.

feffions

REX v. GIBSON.

Order of bastardy

tiorari in due

time, may be

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, Eafter Term, 22. Geo. 3. Cald. 172. removed by cerTwo juflices of the Wef Riding of the county of York, 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 the face of it, Storey, of Anfion, in the faid Weft Riding; "which faid without a pre-child is now become chargeable, &c. and is likely fo vious appeal to "to continue;" and then proceed to order maintenance,

jections on

the feffions.

&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 feffions 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 West 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 arder, the order of feffions, which alone was moved to be quafhed, having only difmiffed 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 feffions confirms the original order, the motion to quafh 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 prefent 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 MR. 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,

:

REX V.

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. Gen. 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 had not iffued to the two juf tices 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 re⚫ turn 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 stated 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 againft its iffuing, which the act intended they fhould have.-WALLACE. It is no more uncertain than notice of motion on the first 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 stated 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

REX v.

* Vide ante.

to the original order, he fhould have done it by appeal in STANLEY due time to the feffions; as they could give relief as well upon the form as upon the merits; and that having declined the bringing of his cafe before the proper jurifdietion in the first inftance, he ought not now to be affifted by the Court per faltum: but they gave time to look for authorities to juftify fuch an interference. A few days afterwards CHAMBRE admitted, that the order might be brought up by certiorari, without any appeal having been previously lodged at the feffions within time; and he (a) E. 1. Ann. ftated the general rule as laid down in (a) 1. Salk. 147. that no certiorari fhall be granted to remove orders of juftices before the determination on appeal to the feffions, unless the time of appeal be expired; because it otherwife hinders the privilege of appealing: confequently that the Court had a general authority to interfere; and that the prefent cafe, in which the defendant had declined an appeal within the period prefcribed by law, was not within the exception. He alfo faid, that this rule was (b) M. 8. Geo.2. farther explained in the (b) cafe of the Borough of Warwick; which adjudged, that it was only in cafes wherein the time of appeal was limited, and not where it was left open at any time, that this general authority of the Court was abridged. He added, that as the certiorari appeared to have been moved in time, he fhould not prefs the Court upon the form of the prefent rule, and without a reasonable profpect of fuccefs put the party to the expence of another. PER CURIAM. The original order of adjudication of two juftices must be quafhed, and the order of feffions, difining the order of adjudication, affirmed.

1. Str.

T. 991.

The mother of

cannot be pu

XII. The punishment of the mother and reputed father.

618. Buifirode, 348. The mother of a baftard child a bastard child fha'l not be punished upon the ftatute of the 7. Jac. 1. nished for a fe, C. 4. as for her fecond offence, unlefs the had been.becond offence fore queftioned, and punished for her first offence. But under 7. Jac. 1. the might have been punished for her firit' offence either c. 4. unless he by the ftatute 18. Eliz. c. 3. or 7. Jac. 1. c. 4.; but is not has been before to be punished by the 7. Jac. 1. c.4. f. 7. as for her fecord offence, unless the had been before punished for her firft offence but this fecond offence fhall be now taken and deemed as her firft offence, and fo is to be punished for the fame according to law.

punished under

1. Eliz. C.

3.

CHAP