jurisdiction to commit them, and that the prisoners were entitled to be discharged.

At the General Quarter Sessions for the county of Huntingdon, held on the 7th and 8th of April, William Nainby Swallow exhibited articles of the peace against Allpress Ashton and Alfred Ashton, in their absence. They were under no recognizance or undertaking to appear at the Sessions, nor had they notice or knowledge that the articles of the peace had been exhibited till after the Sessions were concluded. The caption of the articles was as follows: "At the General Quarter Sessions held at Huntingdon in and for the county of Huntingdon, on Monday the 7th day of April 1845, before," &c. The jurat of the articles was, "Exhibited and sworn by the exhibitant W. N. Swallow in open court at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the said county of Huntingdon, held at Huntingdon, in and for the said county of Huntingdon, this 8th day of April 1845." Upon these articles the Court of Quarter Sessions made an order headed as follows: " Huntingdonshire, to wit. At the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace of our Lady the Queen, holden at the Shire Hall in the town of Huntingdon, in and for the county of Huntingdon, on Monday the 7th day of April, and thence continued by adjournment unto Tuesday the 8th day of April, all in the 8th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria, before," &c. After reciting the exhibition of the articles, it proceeded: "And it is by this Court ordered, that the above named Allpress Ashton and Alfred Ashton do severally and respectively forthwith upon service of this order, before one or more of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace of the said county of Huntingdon, enter into their own recognizances in the sum of 100%. each, and severally and respectively find two sureties in the sum of 50l, each to keep the peace towards the Queen and all her liege people, and especially towards the said W. N. Swallow, for the term of six calendar months now next ensuing." On the 21st of April Messrs. Fryer and Linton, two Justices of the county of Huntingdon, issued their warrant to the constable of St. Ives to apprehend the said Allpress Ashton and Alfred Ashton. The warrant recited that the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions had been proved before

them, and that it had also been proved to them that a true copy of the order had been on the 19th of April personally served upon each of them, Allpress Ashton and Alfred Ashton, and the original order at the same time shewn to them, and that they were then respectively requested to obey it, but that they severally and unlawfully and contemptuously refused to obey the said order of Sessions, and to enter into such recognizances and to find such sureties as mentioned in the said order. The Ashtons were accordingly apprehended on the 21st of April, and brought before Messrs. Fryer and Linton. They were asked whether they were prepared to enter into the recognizances mentioned in the order of Sessions. Their attorney submitted to the Justices that the order of Sessions was void, inasmuch as it had been made without hearing the Ashtons, and without their having an opportunity of being heard in answer to them, and that the Quarter Sessions could not in the absence of parties make an order to find sureties, unless it were sureties to appear at the next sessions to answer. The Justices said they could not question the order of Sessions, and were bound to enforce it. it. They accordingly signed a warrant of commitment, which after reciting the order of Sessions, the warrant to apprehend, and the service of the order, proceeded thus: "And whereas the said order of the Court of Quarter Sessions hath been this 21st day of April 1845, read over in the presence of us, the said Justices, to and in the presence and hearing of the said A. A. and A. A, and they the said A. A. and A. A. have been this day personally required by us, the said Justices respectively, to obey the said order of the said Court of Quarter Sessions, and severally and respectively to enter into such recognizances, and to find such sureties as are therein mentioned, or to shew and assign some good, valid and legal cause why they respectively refused to obey the said order, or why they should not respectively forthwith obey the same, and enter into such recognizances, and find such sureties as are therein mentioned, but they, the said A. A. and A. A. have again severally and respectively unlawfully and contemptuously in the presence of us, the said Justices, and still do unlawfully and contemptuously refuse to obey the said order of the said Court of Quarter Sessions, and to enter into such

recognizances, and to find such sureties as are therein mentioned; nor have they, the said A. A. and A. A, or either of them, shewn or assigned any good, valid, or legal cause for their respectively having refused and still refusing to obey the said order, and to enter into such recognizances, and to find such sureties as are therein mentioned, or why they should not respectively forthwith obey the said order, and enter into such recognizances and find such sureties as are therein mentioned. We, therefore, the said Justices," &c. Then followed the commitment, requiring the keeper of the gaol to keep the bodies of the said A. A. and A. A. respectively, in his custody in the said gaol, "for the residue yet to come and unexpired of the term of six calendar months, to be computed from and next following the 8th day of April 1845," unless in the meantime they should enter into recognizances and find sureties to keep the peace, &c. "for the term of six calendar months to be computed from the 8th day of April 1845." Under this warrant they were committed to gaol.

Gunning (April 24) obtained a rule for a writ of habeas corpus to the keeper of the gaol, to bring up their bodies, together with the cause of their detainer. He also obtained a writ of certiorari to bring up the articles of the peace and the order of Sessions founded thereon. He contended, that the prisoners were entitled to their discharge. First, the articles were exhibited and the order of Sessions thereon made in the absence and without the knowledge of the defendants. Secondly, admitting the order of Sessions to be valid, it only directs the defendants to find sureties to keep the peace, but does not go on to direct that in default of their so doing they should be committed to prison; the two Justices therefore acted without jurisdiction. Thirdly, even if the Justices had jurisdiction at all, they awarded a longer term of imprisonment than they were authorized to inflict, viz. for "six months next following the 8th of April," whereas the caption of the articles shewed the Sessions to have been held on the 7th. Lastly, the order of Sessions does not shew that the Sessions held by adjournment on the 8th of April, were held within the county.

Biggs Andrews and Worlledge shewed

cause (1).—As to the second objection, "It is said that wheresoever a Justice of the Peace is empowered by any statute to bind a person over, or to cause him to do a certain thing, and such person, being in his presence, shall refuse to be bound, or to do such thing, the Justice may commit him to the gaol to remain there till he shall comply," 2 Hawk. P.C. c. 16. s. 2 (2). Here the Sessions have fixed the amount of the sureties, and the Justices had no discretion to alter them. Nor did the defendants apply to have the amount lowered. They refused to enter into any recognizance or find any sureties. In The Queen v. Dunn (3), the Sessions only ordered the defendant to find sureties, and the Justice committed for want of them, but no objection was taken upon that ground. And so, though there is no provision in the statute 1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 13, authorizing Justices to commit to prison witnesses who refuse to appear and give evidence, yet it has been held that they have power to do so-2 Hawk. P.C. 62. c. 8. s. 58, Bennet v. Watson (4).

Gunning (with whom was O'Malley), contrà. The order of Sessions is to do a specific thing, viz. to find sureties. The Magistrates have chosen to enforce that order in a way unknown to the common law. (He was then stopped).

LORD DENMAN, C.J.-We think this warrant of commitment cannot be upheld. The only power given to the Justices was to enforce the order of Sessions. They had

(1) As the judgment of the Court proceeded on the second objection only, the rest of the argument is omitted. Upon the first objection the following authorities were referred to:-Margaret Hutt's case, 2 Burr. 1039; s. c. nomine The King v. Bomaster, 1 Black. 233; The King v. Doherty, 13 East, 171; Lord Vane's case, 13 Ibid. 171, n. (a); The Queen v. Dunn, 12 Ad. & El. 599 ; s. c. 10 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 29; The King v. Benn, 6 Term Rep. 198; Harper v. Carr, 7 Ibid. 275; Painter v. the Liverpool Gas Company, 3 Ad. & El. 433; s. c. 5 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 108.

(2) Cited in 3 Burn's Justice, p. 1015, 29th edit. (3) 12 Ad. & El. 599; s. c. 10 Law J. Rep. (N.S.)

M.C. 29.

(4) 3 Mau. & Selw. 1.

no authority to commit the parties, but they have proceeded to convict them in a summary way upon a supposititious indictment for disobedience to the order of Sessions.

PATTESON, J.-The order of Sessions does not go on to say, "and in default of finding

sureties the defendants shall be committed to prison." It is quite silent as to their commitment. That being so, the Justices have exceeded their power in committing these parties. The committal is not according to the order of Sessions.

WILLIAMS, J.-It is admitted that the Justices had no original jurisdiction to send these men to prison: none whatever. There was merely a devolution upon them of a duty imposed by the Sessions. Consequently, when these men were brought up before them, the Justices could only do what the Sessions had directed. How could it be competent to them to commit them for either one, three or six months? I am entirely at a loss to discover the origin of their jurisdiction to commit them at all.

WIGHTMAN, J.-I am also of opinion that this rule must be made absolute, and the prisoners discharged. The difficulty is to discover the authority of these Justices to commit them at all, the Sessions not having in the order introduced the alternative.

Rule absolute; prisoners discharged.

1845.

THE QUEEN v. THE INHABI

May 3. S TANTS OF RIPON.

Appeal-Certainty and Sufficiency of Statement in Ground-"Separate and Distinct" Dwelling-house.

One of the grounds of appeal against an order of removal stated that the pauper was rated for and in respect of a tenement in the township of H, consisting of two dwellinghouses of the value of 101., &c. :-Held, that such statement was insufficient, by reason of its omitting to state that the dwellinghouses were separate and distinct,” pursuant to the words of the statute 6 Geo. 4. c. 5. s. 72.

66

On appeal against the order of two Justices for the removal of William Leaf, his

The respondents having proved a settlement in the appellant township, the appellants offered to give evidence of a settlement gained by the pauper in the township of Holbeck, under the following grounds of appeal:

Sixth-That after the said supposed service, under the said indenture of apprenticeship, in the said examination mentioned, to wit, in the year 1836, the said pauper, the said William Leaf, was duly rated and charged with his share towards the poorrates of and for the township of Holbeck, in the borough of Leeds, in the West Riding of the county of York, for and in respect of a tenement, to wit, a tenement consisting of two dwelling-houses, situate in the said township of Holbeck, of the value of 10., and held and rented by the said William Leaf of one Charles Crossland, for the term of one whole year, to wit, from the 1st day of November, A.D. 1836, to the 1st day of November, A.D. 1837, at and of the rent of not less than 107., to wit, for the rent of 147. 5s., and which said tenement was duly occupied for the said year, under the said yearly hiring; and the said rent for the same was duly paid, and the said William Leaf duly paid the said rates for and in respect of the said year, and for forty days after the of the said tenement, and during the whole payment of the said rates, resided in the said township of Holbeck.

The seventh, eighth, and ninth grounds of appeal contained similar statements of rating and renting premises, described in the same terms, for the four following years.

The respondents objected to the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth grounds of appeal above set forth as insufficient, for not stating that the tenement or dwellinghouses in respect of which the pauper was alleged in the notice to have been rated were separate and distinct, as required by 6 Geo. 4. c. 57. After an argument the

objection was overruled, subject to the opinion of this Court. The respondents also objected that the above grounds of appeal were severally insufficient, in not shewing any such residence in the township of Holbeck for forty days, as would, together with the payment of the rates stated on the above grounds, confer a settlement in Holbeck, on the party so paying and residing, as alleged. After argument, the objection was allowed, subject to the opinion of this Court. If the Court should be of opinion that the grounds of appeal were sufficient, the order of Sessions to be quashed. [Other points were raised in the case, which were abandoned on the argument.]

Hall and Pashley, in support of the order of Sessions.-This Court has, in the decisions on the New Poor Law Act, uniformly required certainty and particularity of statement in examinations and grounds of appeal, and that nothing shall be left to inference- The Queen v. Wymondham (1), Stowell v. Lord Zouch (2). The term "dwelling-house" cannot be intended to mean a "separate and distinct dwelling-house" or "building," as required by 6 Geo. 4. c.57. s. 2. The term "dwelling-house" may mean a single room, 3 Inst. 65, Co. Litt. 48, b, or chamber, 9 Vin. Abr. 330. So in the earlier cases of settlement a single room was held to confer a settlement-The King v. St. George, Hanover Square(3), The King v. Whitechapel (4). The words separate and distinct" were therefore advisedly inserted in the statute, to meet the difficulty. All the later cases shew that the statute requires, first, distinctness as regards tenure-The Queen v. Caversall (5), The King v. Wakering (6); and secondly, distinctness as regards the building-The King v. Henley-upon-Thames (7), The King v. Great and Little Usworth and North Bid

dick (8). It may be said, that persons in general would understand the term "dwelling-house" to mean a separate and distinct house; but that is no answer where grounds of appeal are drawn under an act of parliament. They should specify in the very words of the act the character of the subjectmatter of the notice- The Queen v. the Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire (9), The Queen v. St. Margaret's, Rochester (10), The Queen v. the Inhabitants of St. Sepulchre, Northampton (11). If this were a case of civil pleading, and it were alleged in the declaration that the reversion of and in a dwelling-house belonged to the plaintiff, the allegation would be satisfied by evidence of a joint ownership of such reversion-Wallis v. Harrison (12).

On the second question they cited The King v. Ringstead (13), The King v. Willoughby (14); but the Court, as will be seen, gave no opinion upon it.

Pickering, contrà.-Where it is stated that a person rented a dwelling-house, the Court will not intend that he only rented a part of one; and the words of the statute are satisfied by its being separate and distinct as regards any other person—The King v. Wootton (15), The King v. Great and Little Usworth and North Biddick. This is not a condition or positive qualification which must be stated, as in The Queen v. Wymondham, but it is matter which the words used necessarily imply, and the effect of the statement can only be defeated by shewing positively a non-compliance with the statute. This very point was raised in The Queen v. the Recorder of Pontefract (16). In The Queen v. the Justices of Buckingham

shire (17), Lord Denman observed, that Justices in matters of this sort were to exercise a reasonable intendment. On the second question he cited The Queen v. St. Mary Kalendar (18), The King v. Gainsborough (19).

LORD DENMAN, C.J.-The stat. 6 Geo. 4. c. 57. s. 2. enacts, that no person shall acquire a settlement by reason of settling upon, renting or paying parochial rates, for any tenement, not being his or her own property, unless such tenement shall consist of a separate and distinct" dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both, bonú fide rented, &c., for the sum of 10l. a year. The first objection taken to these grounds of appeal is, that they do not state the dwelling-house to have been separate and distinct, as the statute requires. Whatever meaning is to be given to these words, "separate and distinct," it seems to me that in order to shew a settlement gained since the statute, the words themselves, or some equivalent words, should be used ;—that is not done in this case; and in conformity with what we have already decided, we must hold these grounds of appeal insufficient. On the other question it is not necessary to give any opinion.

PATTESON, J.-We ought to adhere to the words of the act, and I think the grounds of appeal ought to state that the party acquired a settlement by paying rates for a separate and distinct dwelling-house, boná fide rented by him for the sum of 10%, a year, &c., according to the words of the

statute.

WILLIAMS, J.-I am of the same opinion; the words "separate and distinct" have on several occasions received a distinct inter

pretation by the Court. Can we say that a settlement by rating and renting is complete without them?

WIGHTMAN, J.-I am of the same opinion on the express words of the statute.

Order of Sessions confirmed.

(17) 12 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 29.

(18) 9 Ad. & El. 626; s. c. 8 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 54.

(19) Burr. S.C. 586.

Conviction Stat. 17 Geo. 3. c. 56. ss. 10, 14-Woollen Manufactures-Justices, Jurisdiction of-Penaliies, Distribution of— Statute 3 Geo. 4. c. 24.

A conviction under the statute 17 Geo. 3. c. 56. s. 10. stated, that materials used in woollen manufactures, suspected to have been purloined, had been found in the house of A. B, and that he had given no satisfactory account thereof to the convicting Justices :Held, that it was not necessary that the conviction should state that they mere found concealed in the house, nor that they were found under a search warrant.

The statute 17 Geo. 3. c. 56, so far as regards the distribution of the penalties thereby imposed, is repealed by the statute 58 Geo. 3. c. 57.

Where the information, under 17 Geo. 3. c. 56. s. 10, has been laid before two Justices, and the conviction has taken place before two other Justices, this fact must appear on the face of the conviction.

On an appeal to the Quarter Sessions of the West Riding of Yorkshire, against the conviction of Joshua Taylor, the Sessions quashed the conviction, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following

CASE.

The conviction was in the words following, viz. :-" West Riding of Yorkshire, to wit. Be it remembered, that on the 1st day of May, A.D. 1844, at the parish of Bradford, in the West Riding of the county of York, Joshua Taylor, of the township of North Burley, in the said parish of Bradford, in the said West Riding, weaver, was convicted before us, H. W. Wickham, Esq. and John G. Horsfall, Esq. two of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said West Riding of the said county of York, upon the information upon oath of Joseph Wilcock, of the township of Bradford, in the said riding, inspector of worsted yarn, a credible person, the informer in this behalf, and upon evidence on the oaths of certain persons, of whom the said