Spring Gardens, Manchester, manufacturer; Guardians of the poor of the said township of Manchester."

The grounds of appeal were, amongst others, that no statement under the hands of the guardians of the poor of the township of Manchester or of any three or more of such guardians, setting forth the grounds of adjudication or the particulars of the settlement relied on in support of the said order, has been sent or delivered as required by the statute in that behalf, and that if any such statement has been so sent or delivered, such statement is defective and bad in not stating the address of each of the several guardians by whom the same purports to be signed. That no legal order was ever made for the removal of the said T. Wood as a lunatic pauper from the township of Manchester to the county lunatic asylum at Prestwich, in the said county of Lancaster, and his removal to that asylum and the payment of all expenses in relation thereto, and the costs of the maintenance of the said T. Wood in the said asylum were illegal. That the

order appealed against is bad, inasmuch as at the time of the making of such order, and also at the time of the said T. Wood's being conveyed to the said asylum, he was irremovable by reason of the provisions of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. That the said order is bad, inasmuch as at the time of the making thereof, and also at the time of the said T. Wood's being conveyed to the said asylum, he was chargeable to the said township of Manchester in respect of relief made necessary by sickness, which would not cause permanent disability in the said T. Wood.

After the service of the grounds of appeal, on the 21st of December 1855, the attorney for the respondents sent by post a letter to the attornies of the appellants, informing them that the description and address of the said W. Horsfall were as follows: "Calenderer and Maker-up, Garden Street, Shude Hill, Manchester."

On the trial of the appeal, it was admitted by the appellants that the pauper was, at the time he became chargeable, and thence to the time of the appeal, settled within the appellant township, and by the respondents that the lunacy, on account of which the pauper had been sent to the

asylum, as mentioned in the said order, had ultimately proved to be temporary only, and had not, in fact, produced permanent disability. On the trial, two objections were insisted on by the counsel for the appellants, as grounds for setting aside the order, namely, that the said pauper had been conveyed to the said asylum by reason of his being a lunatic, whose lunacy was not of a permanent nature and had produced temporary disability only at the date of the order appealed against, and was such a sickness whereby no warrant for his removal could be granted within the meaning of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 4, and that no order upon the parish of the settlement of the said lunatic pauper could be made in respect of the expenses in and about the examination, removal to, and maintenance of the said lunatic pauper in the said asylum. That the said statement in writing, setting forth the grounds of adjudication and particulars of settlement, sent by the guardians of the Manchester Union to the said guardians of the said Halifax Union, was defective and insufficient, inasmuch as it did not state the address of the said W. Horsfall, one of the guardians, by whom the said statement was signed.

The counsel for the respondents applied to the said Court of Quarter Sessions to amend the said statement by adding, after the signature of the said W. Horsfall, the description and address of the said W. Horsfall, as given in the said letter sent by the attorney of the respondents to the attorney of the appellants. The Court of Quarter Sessions refused the application, on the ground that it had no power to make such amendment; and after hearing counsel for the respondents, on the two objections taken by the appellants, held that both the objections were valid, and discharged the order, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench.

The questions for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench were, whether the first objection of the appellants was good and well founded; whether the second objection was good and well founded; and if the opinion of the Court on this question be in the affirmative, whether the Court of Quarter Sessions had power to make the amendment prayed. If the Court of Queen's

Bench should be of opinion that the first objection was well founded, then the order of Sessions was to be confirmed, and the order appealed against was to be discharged. If the Court of Queen's Bench should be of opinion that the first objection was not well founded, but that the second objection was well founded, and that the Quarter Sessions had not power to make the amendment prayed, then the order of Sessions was to be confirmed, and the order appealed against was to be discharged; but if the Court should be of opinion that neither objection was well founded, or that the second objection only was well founded, and that the Court had power to make the amendment prayed, then the order of Sessions was to be discharged, and the order appealed against was to be confirmed.

Pashley and Maule, in support of the order of Sessions.-As to the first objection raised, it is found in the case, that the lunacy was not such as in fact produced permanent disability, and, therefore, lunacy being included in the general term "sickness," in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 4, the pauper would have been irremovable. By the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97. s. 102. the expenses are cast upon the common fund of the union in case the pauper lunatic would at the time of his removal to the asylum have been exempt from removal to his place of settlement by reason of some provision in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, and in such case no order of maintenance can be made on the parish of settlement. This must refer to the party being irremovable, if not a lunatic.

[LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-The case finds that the lunacy was curable. But, if at the time of the conveying the pauper to the asylum the Justices might have had reasonable ground for thinking that it would be permanent, is not that enough to support this order?]

Then, as to the second point, that the description and address of one of the guardians signing the statement of grounds of adjudication is not given, as required by the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97. s. 107.

[LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-Had not the Sessions power to amend?]

The power of amendment given by section 4. of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31. applies

only to defects in the form of setting out the grounds of adjudication, including the particulars of settlement. The description and address of the guardians signing is not a part of what is meant by "the statement," within the meaning of the 107th section of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, which is to be looked at strictly.

[COLERIDGE, J.-In that section the word "statement" clearly includes the description and address of the guardians, as well as setting forth the grounds of adjudication, including the particulars of settlement. Description and address is one of the things required to be stated. The Sessions, therefore, had the power to amend.]

Monk and Milne, contrà, were not heard.

LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-The case for the appellants has been well argued, but I think the points contended for cannot be at all supported. The reasons have been stated during the argument, and need not be repeated. It seems to me quite clear that neither objection can be supported. As to the second point, at all events the Sessions had the power to amend, and that is sufficient to make the rule absolute for quashing the order of Sessions.

COLERIDGE, J., WIGHTMAN, J. and ERLE, J. concurred.

Order of Sessions quashed.

The following case, raising the same question, was disposed of immediately after the above decision:

THE OVERSEERS OF THE POOR OF THE TOWNSHIP OF

HUNSLET, appellants, AND THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE DEWSBURY UNION, respondents.

This was an appeal against an order adjudging the settlement of a lunatic pauper to be in H, and ordering the overseers of H. to pay the costs of the pauper's maintenance, &c. in the county lunatic asylum, and, by consent of the parties, a special case was stated for the opinion of this Court.

The material facts of the case were as follows:The pauper's settlement was admitted to be in H. The pauper was conveyed to the lunatic asylum on the 28th of December 1854, and remained there until the 6th of September 1855, at the expense of B. in the D. union, when he was discharged. The order appealed against was made on the 3rd of December 1855. The question raised was, whether the said order was not invalid under the 102nd section of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, the appellant contending that lunacy was sickness within the meaning of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 4, and that as the pauper's attack of lunacy, which occasioned his

Embezzlement-Master and ServantDelivery Clerk to Several Railway Companies.

The Great Western Railway Company and three other railway companies whose lines meet at C. have a common station there, under the management of a station committee, composed of some directors of each company. This committee appoints, pays and dismisses all servants employed at the station, and among others the delivery clerks who are employed to deliver parcels, arriving at C. by any of the railways, throughout C. and its neighbourhood, and to receive the sums charged for their carriage, and to pay them over at night to the chief clerk in the parcel office there. The particulars respecting each parcel are entered in the delivery clerk's book before he delivers them. The chief clerk pays over the whole money received from the delivery clerks to the cashier of the station committee, who keeps a separate account for each company and daily pays over to each its proportion of the receipts. The prisoner, a delivery clerk at C, on a particular day, received among other parcels one which came by the Great Western line, for which 5s. was charged in his book. He delivered the parcel and received the sum, but he altered the 5s. into 3s., and

Coram Pollock, C.B., Erle, J., Willes, J., Bramwell, B. and Watson, B.

after that, at night, duly accounted for the sums as they then stood in his book, keeping back the 2s. difference :-Held, that in an indictment for embezzlement the prisoner might be described as the servant of the four companies or as the servant of the committee.

The Recorder of Chester stated this

CASE.

The prisoner was tried and convicted before me, at the last July Sessions for the city of Chester, on a charge of embezzlement. The first count in the indictment charged, that the prisoner, on, &c., being then employed as servant of the Great Western Railway Company, did, by virtue of his said employment and while he was so employed, receive and take into his possession certain moneys to the amount of 2s., for and in the name and on the account of the said Great Western Railway Company his masters, and that he embezzled the same. Another count, in respect of the same embezzlement, charged the prisoner as being the servant of the Great Western Railway Company, the London and North-Western Railway Company, the Chester and Holyhead Railway Company, and the Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway Company, and as having received the money for and in the name and on the account of those four companies. A third count, in respect of the same embezzlement, charged him as being the servant of John Williams and seven other persons named, and as having received the money for and in the name and on the account of

those eight persons. And a fourth count, in respect of the same embezzlement, charged him as being the servant of Robert Lewis Jones, and as having received the money for and in the name and on the account of the said R. L. Jones. There were two other similar sets of counts in respect of two other subsequent acts of embezzlement. It appeared from the evidence that the general railway station at Chester was built upon land in part belonging to each of the four railway companies, whose lines of railway at the time when it was built ran through or into Chester, namely, the London and North-Western, the Shrewsbury and Chester (since amalgamated with the Great Western), the Ches

ter and Holyhead, and the Birkenhead, Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Railway Companies; that the station is maintained at the joint cost of the above-mentioned companies (except that the Great Western is now in the place of the Shrewsbury and Chester) out of a fund contributed by them in certain agreed proportions, and that it is under the management of a committee of eight gentlemen, directors of these four companies, being the persons named in the count thirdly above mentioned, two of whom are appointed by each company, who are called "The General Station Committee." This committee appoints, dismisses and pays out of the fund above mentioned, the wages of the officers, clerks, and other servants who are employed at the station. Amongst these are the delivery clerks, whose duty it is to deliver to persons in the city of Chester and its neighbourhood parcels which arrive at the station by the trains of any of the four companies addressed to such persons, to receive from them the sums charged for the carriage and delivery of such parcels, and on the night of the same day to account for and pay over to the chief clerk in the parcel office the total of the sums so received by them during the day. For the performance of this duty each of the delivery clerks has given to him each morning a delivery book, into which, before the parcels are handed to him for delivery, the particulars of them are copied in the parcel-office from the several "waybills" of the trains by which they were brought to the station. The chief clerk of the parcel-office each night gives the delivery clerk a receipt in his delivery book for the money actually paid over by him in respect of the day's receipts, and any monies due for parcels delivered on that day, which the delivery clerk has not been able to collect, are carried forward in his delivery book as a balance to the account of the next day. The chief clerk of the parcel-office, on the same day, pays over the monies so received by him to the "cashier" of the general station committee, to the account of the several companies to whom the same respectively belongs. The cashier keeps a separate account for each company, and on the same day pays money over directly to the company

the

The

to which it belongs, or to its bankers. cashier and chief clerk of the parcel-office are appointed, paid, and dismissed by the general station committee in manner herein before mentioned. On the morning of the 26th of February 1856 two parcels. came from London by a train of the Great Western Railway Company, to the Chester station, addressed to Messrs. Prichard & Roberts, booksellers, Chester, on which, according to the way-bill, there were the sums of 5s. and 1s. 6d. respectively to pay for the carriage of them. These parcels, with many others, were on that morning given to the prisoner for delivery, the particulars thereof having been entered from the way-bills in his delivery book, in the manner above described. The total amount "to pay" for parcels to be delivered by the prisoner on that day was 27. 14s. 11d.; the total amount which was accounted for in the delivery-book, and paid over by him in respect of that day's delivery, was 11. 12s. 7d., the balance, 11. 2s. 4d., being carried forward to the next day. The prisoner received from Messrs. Prichard & Roberts the sums of 5s. and 1s. 6d. in respect of their said parcels, but the sums which, at the time of such accounting and payment appeared on the face of the delivery book as having been charged to and received in respect of these parcels were 3s. and 1s. 6d., the 3s. having been written by the prisoner on an erasure of the 5s., and the 17. 12s. 7d. was accordingly less by 2s. than the actual amount received by the prisoner on that day. Similar evidence was given with respect to other parcels which also came by trains of the Great Western Railway Company, and were delivered by the prisoner to other persons in Chester on two subsequent days. The chief clerk of the parcel-office paid over on the same day the monies received by him from the prisoner in respect of these parcels to the cashier of the general station committee, and the cashier, on the same day, paid the same to the bankers of the Great Western Railway Company to the account of the company. Mr. Robert Lewis Jones is the "general manager" at the Chester station, and he also is appointed and paid by the general station committee. He had not any power of appointing or dismissing any

of the officers or servants employed at the station. Mr. Jones stated in his evidence that in cases of loss by the negligence or embezzlement of a "station servant" the usage had been to make good the loss to the particular company by whom it was suffered out of the funds of the general station committee; that losses by negligence had thus been very frequently made good, and losses by embezzlement on three or four occasions. The fund out of which these losses are made good is a different fund from that which is in the cashier's hands for payment over to the several companies or their bankers, as before mentioned; it is in the hands of Messrs. Dixon & Wardell, bankers, of Chester, as the bankers of the general station committee, and is drawn out by cheques signed by the general manager.

Upon this state of facts it was objected by the prisoner's counsel, that no count of the indictment was supported by the evidence, for that the prisoner was not the servant of the Great Western Railway Company, or of the four companies, or of Mr. Jones; and that if he was the servant of the general station committee he did not receive the monies alleged to have been embezzled by him for or on account or in the name of that committee, but for and on account and in the name of the Great Western Railway Company. The Queen v. Townsend (1) and The Queen v. Beaumont (2) were cited. I reserved these objections for the decision of this Court, and left to the jury to say whether the prisoner had fraudulently retained to his own use the sums which he had received over and above those which he had accounted for and paid over. The jury found the prisoner guilty of all the charges alleged in the indictment, and thereupon I respited the sentence and admitted him to bail until the judgment of this Court should have been given upon the points reserved. The question which I respectfully submit for the decision of this Court, therefore, is, whether any of the counts of the indictment was supported by the evidence.

No counsel was instructed for the pri

The prisoner, a clerk in the W. County Bank, intercepted and stole a packet of bank notes of the W. bank to the amount of 951., which had been paid into a branch bank, and by the manager of that bank had been sent by post to the W. bank to be re-issued or otherwise disposed of :-Held, that the notes, though they were not in circulation at the time they were stolen, were still bank notes within the meaning of the statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 110. s. 18, which allows bank notes to be described as money in an indictment, and that consequently the prisoner might properly be indicted and convicted of stealing 951. in money.

The following CASE was stated by the chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the Isle of Ely.

F. West and E. West were charged on an indictment (a copy of which is hereunto annexed), the said F. West with stealing 957. in money, and the said E. West with receiving 57. in money, part of the said 951., knowing them to have been stolen.

The manager of the National Provincial Bank of England, at Boston, inclosed in an envelope, addressed to the manager of the same bank at Wisbeach, nineteen 51. notes of the said bank, (issued at Wisbech), which had been paid into the branch bank at Boston. The bank do not re-issue at one branch notes originally issued at another branch, but transmit them

Coram Pollock, C.B., Erle, J., Willes, J., Bramwell, B. and Watson, B.