and 10th sections of the general inclosure act; which makes the decision of the commissioners and justices conjoined, final and conclusive with respect to both public and private roads. The case of Rex v. The Justices of Cumberland (a), is perfectly distinguishable from this, because there the matter at issue did not fall within the excepted determinations which were declared by the general inclosure act to be final and conclusive. On these grounds, the Sessions did right in refusing to hear the appeal.

Scarlett, contrà. This is an appeal from a decision, not of the commissioners, but of a commissioner and a magistrate, for stopping up a private road, and therefore the case does not come within the 8th section of the ge neral inclosure act, which applies exclusively to public roads. It may be true, that the joint order of the commissioners and justices is by that section declared to be final and conclusive; but non constat that the 10th section, which relates to private roads, takes away the appeal. That section only declares, that the setting out of a private. road shall be subject to such notice and examination as are required in the case of a public road; but there is no declaration that the order of the commissioners in such cases shall be final and conclusive, and therefore the Court cannot by mere inference say, that because the appeal is taken away in the case of a public, it is also taken away in the case of a private road. Express words are necessary to take away the right of appeal; and as there is no declaration that the judgment of the commissioners shall be final and conclusive as to a private road, it seems reasonable that in this case an appeal ought to lie. Had this been a determination of the commissioners alone, perhaps there might be some weight in the argument on (a) 1 B. & C. 64.

churchwardens and overseers of the poor, shall nd every year within fourteen days after other s shall be nominated and appointed to succeed eliver into such succeeding overseer, a just, true, fect account in writing, fairly entered in a book s kept for that purpose, and signed by the said ardens sand overseers, of all sums of money by ceived, or rated and assessed, and not received, &c. account shall be verified by oath before one or stice, &c. and in case they refuse so to do, it lawful for any two or more Justices of the Peace nit him or them to the common gaol, until he or Il have given such account.

r and Campbell shewed cause against the rule, tended, that inasmuch as it had been determined Court in Rex v. Carrocke (a), that if any account rendered before the Justices, although imperfect, ices could not take any steps to commit the overnder the provisions of 43 Eliz. c. 2, a mandamus ot lie. In this case an account of the gross sums

(a) 1 Bott. P. L. 299. Show. 395.

Riding of the county of York;" the case was In pursuance of a notice published in the newsMr. Stocks, a Magistrate of the county of York, -. Pilkington, one of the commissioners named in above-mentioned, held a meeting for the purpose ing any objections which might be urged to any of Is set out by the commissioners appointed by that d the commissioners having set out a certain prirriage and occupation road, in which Mr. and eaumont were interested, the matter was heard by tlemen above-mentioned, who determined that ad ought not to have been set out, and by their isallowed the same. Against this order Mr. and eaumont appealed, but the Sessions dismissed the on the ground that they had no jurisdiction. The now was, whether by the private inclosure act, ence to the general inclosure act, 44 Geo. 3. c.109, t recited), the order in question was such an act, mation, or proceeding, against which an appeal e. By s. 44. of the private inclosure act, it is "that if any person or persons shall think himself, or themselves aggrieved by any thing done