them/elves griev'd. But it was agreed by ah, That two Juftices of the Foreign Count}- could not by ad
Order fend the poor Man back again to the Place from whence he came, for chat would make an Inter-
fering of lurifdiUU-ns; but at laft the Order ot Chefhire was quaiYd for being informal, and fo the Points
above were not determined. Carth. 2S;,iSS. S. C. by Name of the King v. the Parifliioners of Hun-
6. The Juftices of Middlefex made an Order at their SeJJions for re-im-
burfing one Duncomb Surveyor of the Highways, upon the new Statute i
and irT was moved to quaih this Order, tor that it appeared Mr. 1). had
flrit applied to the Special hellions, where the Jultices rcfufed to meddle,
then he applied himielf to the General Sellions as a Pcrlbn aggrieved.
Holt Ch. J. laid, It comes to the General Selfions per Saltan? ; tor it cannot
be by Way of Appeal, where the Juftices have done nothing betore ; and
tho' it was urg'd by Sir T. Powys, that there is another Claufe in the
Ait, which gives an Original junldiction to the Selfions, to that Eyres
J. anfwered, That is only where tormer Statutes about Repairs do not
reach, and upon Affidavit &c. He laid further, it feenrd doubtful
whether a Surveyor can be re-imburs'd by this Statute tor any Thing
but Gravelj though he thought he might Â£cc. Comb. 235. Hill. 5 \V.
&M. in B. R. The King and Queen v. Ulington Inhabitants.
Poors Settle- r>. \ t a poor Peribn be removed from one Â¥ lace where not legally fettled
ments 190 tbe g c jj; ons U p 0n Appeal may quaih the Order, but cannot remove her to a
g. ^35. cite s f birA place . per Hoki Comb _ 2g6 Tdn 6 w & M fi R WalÂ£ , a
S. P. For Cafe,
they can but
affirm or reverfe. Comb. 396. Mich. S VY. g. B.R. Bull's Cafe. Poors Settlements 190. pi. 2.34.
cites S. C. S P. 3 Saik 254 The King v. the P-irifh of Winflcy. Two Juftices removed a
Man ] rem Terrent Keinflcn, and adjudged him to ie legally lajl fettled at 1 irrin Crawford, upon which they
appealed ; and there it was ordered, Thar it appearing to the SeJJions that he wis laft fettled at Amrter,
therefore they difcharge Tirrin-Cravijord, ,;nd order the peer Man to be removed toAmner: This was
quafhed, becaufe this was to make an Original Order, which the Juftices at Selfions have no Power to
do ; they might have reverfed the firft < >rde , and ordered the Party to be carried back to Terrent
Kcinfton, but they could not remove the Party to Amner, a Third Parifh, who was no ways concern "d
in the Order or Apjcal ; and if they are really chargeable with it, it muff be at the Complaint of Ter-
Seflionsof the Peace. 347
rent Keinfton to two Juftices of the Peace 2 Salk. 47 5. pi. 1 3 . Mich. 8W.5. B. R. Amner Panto's
Cafe.. Poors Settlement'* 26S. pi. gc6. S. C.
8. Two Juftices removed a Mm from Honiton in the County oi' Devon. ^^g"'
to South Beverton in the County of Somerfct; they appealed to the Seffions in â„¢ e â„¢ ' g^
the County of Devon, where the Order was reverfed. Now two Juftices s> c.
in the County of Somerfct may by Order msow him to Honiton again j For
it is but an Execution of the Order ol Seffions, which could not other-
wife be done ; becauie it is out of the Jurifdiction ot the Court of Sef-
fions. Comb. 401. Mich. 8 W. 3. B. R. Honiton Parilh v. South Be-
9 Seffions cannot make an Order to profecate an Offender out of the zLd. Raym.
County Stock, z Salk 605. Patch. 2 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. Savin. s e Â£ ' I-
10 Two Juftices made an Order of Bafiardy. The Party appeal'd j Â« Mod. 1-5.
The 'juftices at Seffions fit a fide that Order, and made an Original Order, J^riSâ„¢
end held well ; For thev have an Original Authority. Poor's Settle- d - flcre Â£ t
ments 38. pi. 63. Patch. 1712. B. R. The Queen v. Cripps. Cafe.
11. Tht 'Juftices made an Order which was to continue till Seffions, and
then the Seffions made an Order, and both Orders were qualhed ; becaufe
the Seffions making an Original Order is void. Poor's Settlements 33.
pi. 53. Hill. 1713- Braiton v. Ulley. ? .
12 The Seliions have no Original Power ro rt/po?/tf Overfeers. Poor s An Order u
Settlements 123. pi. 168. Mich. 1726. The Ring v. the Inhabitants or ^^
Chilmarton. an Jtpeal a-
gainjt an Apr
Wtntment of Overfeers of the Poor, which was difcharred, and a new Appointment was made of other
Persons "Powel there mart be two rubftannal Inhabitants appointed , and if thefe are dift barged at the
Seffions it mult
the Caption MS. Cafes' Hill. lo.Aun. B. R. The QUeep y. Overieers ot Maiden Reubrefli.
(I) Power of Seffions over their own Orders.
i r-p\VO Juftices made an Order to remove a poor Man from W. to B- On Appeal
X The Parilhioners ot" B. appealed to the Seffions, and the Order of J^^J^
the two Jujiices was ft afide; Afterwards, but in the fame Seliions, upon niadc hy fwo
Alleo-ation of Couniel, the Seihons did fuperfede their firft Order, and Juftices, the
confirm the Order of the two Juftices 5 and upon a Motion made to this -p ic f fÂ°"~
Court, it was alleged, That the Record was m the Breail ot the CpHjF ^ a â€ž d a f m
during the whole Seifions, and therefore they might lawfully fuperfede i nt h e famc
their own Order. To Avhich it was anfwered, That they having once Seffions re-
executed their Authority, they cannot let it up again The Court af- ^'g.^ h
firmed the fecond Order of Seffions, and quaihed the firft. $ M " d - 39&- bel
Pafch. 10. W. 3. Batterfea Inhabitants v. Weftham. turned on a
The Court held, ift, That the Judgment is in the Bread of the Juftices, and alterable by them all the
fame Seffions. adlv, That a jubjewent Order directly contrary to a former made in the fame .Seffions in the
fame Cau f e is an alfolute Repeal of the former, as being inconfiftent with it tho there are No exprefs
Words of Repeal in the 2d Order. 6 Mod. 28; Mich. 5 Ann. B. R. St Clement s Panto v. St. An-
drew'. Piriffi â€”2 Saik.606. ph 5. St. Andrew's Holbourn v. St. Clement s Danes S C. accordingly ; And
Holt Ch 1 faid That bv the 2d Order of the Seffions, the firft Order there ceaied to be a Record.â€”
Poor's Settlements '63, pi. it 1 5- & C. Holt Ch. J. in the Principal Cale, 6 Mod. 2S;. cited a ^&U
a: theHXten Of yC0lcl1Â£fftr in U.K. fome Years a S o, exactly like the Principal Cafe ; and there, be-
caufe the -d Order did not exprefsly repeal the firft Ord:r; and becauie the Juftices returned them both
as Orders, the 2d Order was quafhed and the firft fet up. And 2 Salk 607. Holt Ch J. laid. I he
Seffions ought to have fet the firft Order whollv afide, and to have entered up the laft Order as, the
Onl'y Order-, For the Meet of the Court's fetting afide the firft Order, is, that it ceafrs tq bean Or-
der and confeouently ought not to have been returned to B. R. as an Order vacated by another Order, but
Seilions of the Peace.
Kpuld haze leen atiKulkd, and made nothing ; As in B. R. tlie Court cannot enter up one Judgment
on Record, ard tl.en enter a Vacat of that, and then enter a contrary one. TheSeflions as well as the?
Term is but one Day in Law. But the Matter was referred to thre 5 puifne Judges and fo it refted
' 2 Salk. 4<;4. pi. 61. S. C. & P. a '
(K) Power to delegate Authority to Juftices.
virions fliall fee a Rate for Relief of Children by their Parents,
J but they can not transfer their Authority to other Juftices of Peace
to do it. Sti. 154. Mich. 24 Car. B. R. The King. v. Humphries.
*d 2 5 B Mich u 2 ' *** JyP' ces u P on Complaint order one R. to keep a haftard Child t
6 Cm BR the Sl jfiÂ°" s vacated the Order, and referred it back again to the Juftices.
S P in Cafe wi>0 dl(l nothing further ; the next Seilions one Burweil was adjudged the
ofThcKing reputed Father, and ordered to pay fo much a Week &c. until the Child
+Mod" h *T WaS I2 YearS Â° ld ' this 0rder WdS removed intoB. R. They relolved,
54. S. GÂ°' P Thilt the Seffions could not * reler the Matter back to the Juftices ; and
Keeling raid, tn;lt the la ^ Order was void, it being to pay fo much per Week until
They ought the Child was 12 Y^ears old, but it Ihould be, as long as it is chargeable
to have the PariJh ; For the Father might take it when he would. 1 Vent. 48
Ordt made Mich - 2I C ^. 2. B. R. f Burwell\s Cafe. 4 '
by the two Juftices. And Tviifden J. faid, They may vacat the firft Order, and refer it back as Res
Poor's Settle- 3. A Judge of Nifi Prius by Confent of the Parties may make a Rule
pi. 307 cites to reler a C 3 "^ but thc Se'lions cannot do fo, tho 5 by Confent. They
S C.- ma y re fc? a fhing to another to examine, and make a Report to them for their
S P Agreed Determination, but can net reler a Thing to be determined by the other â€¢
fsalk U J' 8 W - 3 - R R> Tne Kin S v< Harding.
Patch 1 Ann. B. R. in the Hundred of Blackheath's Cafe. Holt Ch. L faid, He was not fatisfied
tnat theSdhons can ever refer the Examination of a Matter to a certain Number of themfelves, becaufe
they are al Judges or the Facl, and therefore they tranfact it as Judges in Court ; but allow M they
may refer the Examination of the Faft, and refe.ve tl-.e judgment to themfelves, vet doubtlefs they
cannot give a Power to make Rates and Orders.
P00rsSe1tlements217.pl. 258 cites S. C.
4. J. H. a poor Perfon complained to the Seffions, that he being a
lame Seaman, and reduced to a very low Condition, and oblig'd CO fell
part ol his Houfe, yet he was charged with 9 s. per Ann. to the Poor,
and prays to he relieved of this Charge. The Seliions made an Order
to reler it to two Juftices, and they to report it to the next Seffions. The
two Juftices made a final Order. It was objeaed, That the Seffions
cannot delegate their Authority. Per Cur. They may make an Order to
refer it to two Juftices ; but then they rnuft report it to the next Seffions, and
the Seffions rnuft make the Order final. But that Formality not being ob-
ferved here, the Order of the two Juftices is ill; and it was quaihed.
Poor's Settlements 8. pi. 13. Hill. 1712. The Queen v. the Inhabitants
2^â„¢â„¢" 5 ' A " Â° rder made ll P on P afrin S an Overfeers Account, and confirmed
to quafh two on Appeal, W;ts quaihed, becaufe the Examination of the Matter was re-
orders of prr'd by the Court of Seffions to feme Gentlemen, upon whofe report the
Quarter SeC Order was made. MS. Cafes,
the Juftices of Peace for the County of Middlcfex, The Cafe was this, A Churchwarden of the Parifh
of St Mary Iflmgton, and who acted as Overfeer of the Poor, came to pafs his Accounts before two fufUcei
VXiOdtf allowed feveral Items therein, (vu. ) one of z6 I. for a Perambulation Dinner, another of for
Jsew Bell Ropes, and ordered him to pay the Money to his Succeflbr, which he did accordingly, but
Sell ions of the Peace. 349
appealed to the Quarter Sejfions, and the Juftices ordered 4 or 5 of tie Bench to examine the dif allowed Items
and report the fame at the next Court, and at the next Ccurt the faid Items were allowed, and the Succeffor
ordered to pay back the Sum he had received if he had Money. It was alleg'd, That the 1 ft Order of Quarter
Scffions ought to be quafhed becaufc the Juftices could not delegate their Judicial Authority to others ;
but it was held, Per Cur. That the Examination of the Account by thofe appointed was only in Aid of
the Court, and well. It was infilled, That the zd Order ought to be quafhed, becauft it was grounded upon
an Jllowar.ce of fuch of the faid Ckurcl wardens Dislurfements of the Poor's Money as ought not to be allowed.
But per Parker Ch. J. This Court has not been nice as to the Things in which the Poor's Money is laid
out, fo that it be in fuch Things for which the Parifti was ratable; For fuch Disburfements prevent a
Multitude of Rates. And as to the Words of this Order, vii. If he had Money, it was held they Jt gul-
fed when he Jbottld have Money, fioth Orders were confirmed. MS. Cafes Mich. 4 Geo. B. R. Parifll
(L) Their Power as to Arrefls.
1. A Perfon was arrelted as he was coming to the Scffions, whereupon Sid. 2^9. pi.
Jf\ the Juftices of the Peace granted a Habeas Corpus to diicharÂ°-e 2i - s - c - and
him, for that he ought not to be arrelted Eundo & Redeundo &c. Wind- fa^Mo- 6
ham and Twifden J. inclin'd that the Privilege ought to be allowed ; tion the
But per Kelyng, the Juftices of Peace cannot grant Habeas Corpus : Et Court doubt-
Adjornatur. Lev. 159. Hill. 16 & 17 Car. 2. B. R. Clarke v. Mo- ed whcthei '
lineux. f uch 1>nvl :
. c . â€ž , , ,-. ed to fuch
inferior Courts, or only to the Courts here. S. C. Raym. 100. that the Pleading this Habeas Cor-
pus by the Sheriff feem'd to be ill, bccaule the Juftices cannot caufe an arretted Perfon to be difmifled.
And cites Brownl. 15. SUuToll'S Cafe, where the Court held, That if a Man be arrefted in the Face
of the Court, the Court has Power to difcharge him, but not otherwife.
(M) Power of an after Seflioris to eontroul a former. sÂ«cGjpi.$;
*' HP H E R E hAd been Time out of Mind One Conft able for Ratclif,
X Shddwell, and Old Wappng in Middlefex, who joined in Relief of
their Poor, but the Number of their Houfes and Inhabitants greatly mcreaf-
ing within 30 Years laft pali, they made feveral Conft able s, and relieved
their poor feparately ; but the Poor of Shadwell increaftttg, fo that they were
not able to relieve them, they complained to the Sejjions when Hide Ch. J.
and Windham J. wen prefent ; and it was then ordered that thefe ParifBes
Jhoald be joined again, and relieve their Poor together; but afterwards, at a-
notber Sejtons, where Sir John Robinfon, a Juftice of Peace ofMiddlefex
was Chairman, it was ordered, that they JJjou Id be fevered again; which
laft Order was quafhed ; becaufe the'Seffions cannot alter an Order
made in Seffions where any Judges of B. R. are prefent; becaufe by the
Statute, Matters oi Difficulty are to be judged bv them, fo that what they
order is of greater Authority; befides the Juftices of Peace had no Power
concerning the Poor before the Statute 43 Eliz. and even by that Statute
they have no Power to fever Parijhes, for which Reafon feveral Afts of
Parliament have been additionally made lor feveral Parilhes in the
North. Sid. 292. pi. 9. Trin. 18 Car. 2. B. R. The King v. the Inha-
bitants of Ratcliff &c.
< 2. An Order was made to remove one from C. to B. and this Order, be- Comb 41 S
ing appeal d from, was confirmed at the Sejftons ; but the Se/Bons after th?t Hill. 9 W 3
4 U J ^/B.is.G
o^o Seflions of the Peace.
â€”Poor's Set- , n ade an Order of Review, and qiia.fl.ed the former Order of Seflions, becaufe
elements 177. M ^ e L Sarprife. And per Cur. The Order of Review inuft be qualhed t,
pi in. cites for the j uitices have no Power after the fir ft Seflions. 2 Salk. 477. Hill.
i> ' 8 W. 3. B. R. Inhabitants of Cocktield v. Boxftead.
(N) Co/Is upon Appeal.
i.sy 9 JVM. 3. T?Nacl:s, That the Jujlices in their Gkiarter-Seffions,
cap. 30. S 3. Pj upon any Appeal concerning the Settlement of any poor
Perfon, or upon any Proof before them made of Notice of fitch Appeal, jhall
order to the P arty, for whom fuch Appeal Jhall be determined, or to wbemfuth
Notice did appear to have been given, fuch Cojls as by the Jujlices jhall be
thought jujl, to be paid by the Churchwardens, Overfeers, or any other Perfon
agamft whom fuch Appeal jhall be determined, or by the Perfon that did give
fuch Notice ; and if the Perfon ordered to pay fuch Cojls, pall live out of the
Jurifdicliou of 'the Court, any Jujl ice of the County &c. wherein fuch Perfon.
jhall inhabit, is required, upon Requcjl made, and a Copy of the Order for
Cojls produced, and proved by Warrant, to caufe the Money mentioned in that
Order, to be levied by Dijlrefs and Sale of Goods; and if no fuch Dijlrefs
can be had, to commit fuch Perfon to the Common Gaol, there to remain 20
An Order cf 2 . $Geo.2. cap. 19. S. 2. Ena&s, That no Certiorari Jhall be allowed to
Setfiws re- rmcve a â€žy Order, unlefs the Party profecuting jhall enter into a Red
Certiorari zance, with Sureties, before onejujlice of Peace where fuch Order /ball bavi
being now' been made, or before one of his Mj fly's Jujlices of Â£. R. in the Sum of
cenfrmed by j Q A with Condition to profecute without wilful Delay, and to pay the Party
this Court, it in rjjtofc favour fuch Order was made, within one Month after the faid Or-
Tbr S Coft V s'up d er fi a11 be confirmed, their Cojls to be taxed. And in Cafe the Party profe-
on this Sta- cuting fuch Certiorari, Jhall not enter into fuch Recognizance, or Jhall not
tute, which p er form the Conditions ajorefaid, it Jhall be lawful for the Jujlices to proceed,
the Court m( i ma fe furtfor Orders, as if no Certiorari had been granted.
Consideration gave, though at firft the Ch. J. fomething doubted. 2 Barnard. Rep. in B.R. 415.
Pafch. 7 Geo. 2. 1734. The Parifh of Thatcham v. the Parilh of Bucklebury.
(O) Orders of Seflions. Good, or not, in RefpeB
An Order 1. /^vRder of Seflions (on Complaint of&c. that A. was a poor Inhabit
of Sejpcns y^J tant or t he Parilh ol B. and had lately intruded himlelf into the
fcompkint" Parilb of C - &c thac A - is a lettled Inhabitant of B. and that the
before two Over leers of B. receive him, with his Wile and his Family, into their
Juftices, faid Pariili of B. and provide for them as their Poor, according to Law,
concerning a an( j ^^ fa inhabitants of the Parijh of C. be di/charg'd &c Adjudged
nee^ no"'' S ood Â» tno ' ^t faid that he was likely to become chargeable, or that he was
mention that an Inhabitant of C. but only that he had lately intruded himlelf &c.
it aid appear z Show. 290. Pafch 35 Car. 2. B. R. The King v. Chiltleton.
Man was likely to become chargeable ; but it is otherwife in an Original Order. Carth. 221. Pafch. 4 W.
&M. B.R. The King v. Colliton Parifh.
2. A. B.
Seflions of the Peace. 3 Â£ 1
2. A. B. and C. conteft the Settlement of a Poor Per fon , and 2 Juftices
adjudge him lait legally fettled at A. A. appeals; Seiiions Tepeal the
OfderÂ° and order him to be removed to C. as kit legally fettled there ;
but the Seilions Order did not recite that C. was heard on the Appeal, yen
held o-ood, becaufe C. was a Party to the Original Order, and confe-
quendy to the Appeal ; otherwife 'Seflions could not have charg'd them,
as not being beiore che Court. Carth. 221. Pafch. 4 W. & M. The
King v. Coiliton Pariih.
3. An Order made by two Juftices, for fettling a poor Man at fuch
a Place was qualh'd at the Seiiions ; but becaufe it did not appear that it
came before them by Way of Appeal, the Order of Seflions was qualh'd ; for
they have not Original Jurildi&ion, but it muft be brought before them
by Appeal. 3 Salk. 2^7. pi. 9- Pafch. 9 W. 3. Tudy v. Padltow.
4 An Order oi' Seiiions drawn up fpecially, in Order to have the Opi- sÂ»o where a
nion of the Court, was concluded, And if the Court Jhonld be of Opinion, o"^as
then &c. which was neld naught ; for the Juftices ought to determine one made, in Cafd
Way or other, and not make a ipecial Concision, referring to the Court ; the Court of
but it was reierr'd to the j udge of Ailiie. 2 Salk. 48 6. pi. 46. Hi 11. 1 1 f â€¢ J -fimU
A\ r . 3. B. R. Anon. that where 3
Servant was hir'd at a Fair ten Days after Michaelmas till Michaelmas next, fuch Hiring and Service
did K ain a Settlement then &c. and for this the Order was qualh'd. 12 Mod. 323 Mich, n W. 3.
B R Pariih of Grindon in Northamptonlhire, and Overcott in Warwick. 12 Mod 376. Pafch. 12
W - B R. S C by Nameof Â£fl)bniCOtt b. (SrttlDOto, and reports it, that the Order of Seiiions re-
cited an O'-dcr of 2 Tuftires, for the fettling a poor Perfen In the Pariih of O and concluded in the Na-
ture of a Special lerdiH, riz. If the Poor Perion of Right belongs to the Pariih ofO. we confirm, if to.
the Pariih of G. we quaih the Order ; but to which it does belong of Right, we fubmit to the Court of
B R.' Per Cur. We are bound ex debito fuftitU, to confirm an Order ^ if nothing appears why it patld be fet
nfide ; and the Order of Seiiions was qualh'd, and the other confirm'd.
5. An Order of Seflions was quafh'd, for that it was, That the Perfon ^ggj*
Was likely to become chargeable, as we are credibly inform d. 12 Mod. 323. Â° hi ' h 1 ^.
Mich. 11 W. 3. B. R. Pariih of Bloxom v. Kingfton. Whereas wi
by the Churchwardens &c. was qualh'd. 12 Mod. 407. Trin. 12 W. 3. B.R. Pariih of Erith v. thai
6. A Motion was made to quaih an Order of Seffions ; the Exception
taken was, That it did not appear that there was any Complaint of the
Overfeers, only A. Â£. Â®ttoruni Unas, do order &c. 1 1 Mod. 222. Patch.
8 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. the Inhabitants of Puttenham.
7. An Order oi Seitions is made, upon an Appeal from an Order of 2
Juftices 5 whereas upon the Complaints of the Churchwardens of fuch a Pa-
riih, and upon hearing Counfcl &c. It was excepted, That it did not appear
that either Pariih appealed : Sed non allocatur, it being laid upon hear-
ing of Cotwfel. MS. Cafes. Trin. 10 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. St. Peters
in Hereford. , â€ž .
8 Two Juflices made an Order, to which the Pariih appeal d : The On an a p -
SefTtons fet ajide the Order j and it was mov'd to quaih the Order of Sef-Â£* Â» ^
fions it not appearing that it was upon hearing the Merits j lor the bta- Loun rf ,y_
tute never intended that an Order defective in Law lhould conclude, and chmgtthe
the Seiiions have no Authority unlels it came regularly b -Jfl th ^^.^
Adjornatur. Poor's Settlements 8. pi. 12. Mich. 11 Ann. B.R. Sat- And Â«&wÂ«
iron Walden v. Little Hempftead. to fet afide
of Difcharre becaufe the juftices do net fay whether thev difcharge it for Form or en the Merits; For
if it was for Form the Pariih is not bound ; but if on the Merits, the Pariih, in Conlequence, is hereby
difchareed for ever ; And per Cur. lft, The Juftices are not bound to exprefs the * Re a fon of their Judgment
in the fud^ment no more than other Courts ; and if it was otherwife held in the late Chief Juftice S
Time it palled without Confideration.
As where judgment is arretted upon an inefficient Indictment. If the Seffions reverie thefrfiOi
ard that being removed appears to be food, this Court muft intend it mas reierfed en tl â– â– Merits, aifk affirm
the Order of Sevens. It the Seffions reverie the firfl Order, and that being removed apirars M to M
Â£Â£%Â£} Sd it Lers'dfor Form, and affi.Vthe Order of Kcftrft] J So it the Setfiu* Afta-tM
3 ^ 2 Seflions of the Peace.
fi r ft Order, and that appears to be good, we muft affirm the Order of Seffions. But if the frfi Order
appears bad, ar.d the Seffions rffirms it, this Ciurt naif} rvotrft it, becaufe it appears naught, 2 Salk. 607.
60S. Mich. 9 Ann. B. R. Parifh of. South Cadbury v. Pariih ot Braddon. Poor's Settlements it.
pi, z\-. cites S.C MS. Cafes, S. C by Name of The Queen v. South Cadbury and Braddon.
* An Order of Seffions, that quafhes an Older of the two Juflices, is good, tho' it gives no Re. if on.
MS. Cafes Mich. S Ann. The Queen v. Inhabitants of St. Giles in Reading, It need not fet forth whe-
ther the faid Order was quafh'd for Form, or upon the Merits.
It is a Rule 9. The Seffions confirm 'd the Original Order : It began thus, Uponhear-
of B C R Â° " *"& t,: ' e ^PP eal of Bttrcot, it was moved that the Pariih itfelf cannot appeal,
Thatwfcew- Duc the Inhabitants; fo it is Nonfenfe and an Abfurdity ; But it muft be
tier an Or- intended the Paripioners, and can have no other Intendment. Poor's
tUr upon the Settlements 25. pi. 35. Hill. 1712. B. R. The Parifh of" Eaton v. Bur-
.odor bad, the Court will alway sfuppofe it to be right. Foley'sPoor Laws 279. Anon.
9. The Seflions appoint two of the Inhabitants to be Ovcrfeers, Not faid
Subjl ant tal Inhabitants, as the Statute directs ; and quaih'd per Cur.
Poor's Settlements 123. pi. 168. Mich. 1726. B. R. The King v. the
Inhabitants of Chilmarton.
See (0) (P) Orders of Seflions. Quaftj'd for what.
1. TT was moved for fetting afide of an Order of Seffions for the Set-
J[ tling of a poor Perfon in a Town which had been fent thither by
an Order ot 2juitices; And it was confirmed upon an Appeal to the
Selfions. But the Court would hear nothing of the Merits of the Caufe,
the Order of Seffions being in that Cafe final, tinlefs there had been Error ift