before mentioned, to take some part of the premises, but not the whole, the like verdict was to be entered for the plaintiffs as to such part which the defendants had no right to take; and a verdict for the defendants, in respect of the premises to which their authority extended. And if the Court should be of opinion, that the defendants had a right to take the whole of such premises, then a nonsuit was to be entered.

The case was argued in Michaelmas term, by

Wilde, Serj., for the plaintiffs; and by Goulburn, Serj., for the defendants. The points on which the counsel relied, and the sections of the statutes upon the applicability of which they respectively depended, are so fully commented upon and discussed in the judgment of the Court, that it is deemed unnecessary to state the argument.

TINDAL, C.J.-This was an action of trespass, brought in pursuance of the order of the Lord Chancellor, for the purpose of obtaining the decision of this Court upon the question, whether the defendants were entitled to take and use the premises, or any of them, described in certain proceedings in the Court of Chancery, for the purposes of the statutes 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76. and 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 69, or either of them. The question related to four cottages, out of eight, four pieces of land close adjoining to the said cottages, and thirtyseven small allotments; and we are of opinion, upon the proper construction of the said statutes, and the consideration of the facts stated in the special case, that the guardians of the poor were not entitled to take and use any part of the premises above referred to.

The authorities given by the first-mentioned statute to the Poor Law Commissioners, so far as they relate to the present subject of inquiry, are, the authority given by the 23rd section, "to order and direct the overseers of any parish having a workhouse or workhouses, or any buildings capable of being converted into a workhouse or workhouses, to enlarge or alter the same;" and the authority given to the commissioners by sect. 26, is to declare the union of as many parishes as they shall think fit, whereupon "the workhouse or

workhouses of such parishes shall be for their common use;" and the commissioners may issue orders and regulations for the classification of such poor as may be relieved therein, and for other purposes; and the question will be, whether any of the cottages above specified, or any part of the land, either by reason of being held and used together with the cottages, their mode of occupation, or otherwise, can be considered to fall within the meaning of the term "workhouses," employed in the act. If that word were received in the ordinary acceptation, it points to a building commonly found in most of the parishes of England, in which the paupers of the parish are lodged and kept under the controul of the parish officers, out of the poor-rate. But it must be allowed that it is used in the act, in a sense somewhat larger and more comprehensive. For, by the interpretation clause (sect. 109), it is enacted, that the word "workhouse" shall be construed to include "any house in which the poor of any parish or union shall be lodged and maintained, or any house or building purchased, erected, hired, or used, at the expense of the poor-rate, by any parish, vestry, guardian, or overseer, for the reception, employment, classification, or relief of any poor person therein, at the expense of such parish;" and, again, the word "poor," by the same clause, "shall be construed to include any pauper, or poor, or indigent person applying for or receiving relief from the poor-rate in England and Wales, or chargeable thereto." The question, therefore, presented to us, must be determined by a comparison of the evidence stated in the special case, with the definition or interpretation above given by the statute; and the inquiry becomes this-first, whether the four cottages are houses in which the poor of the parish were lodged and maintained. And we think the general mode of user of these four cottages, from the time they were built in 1797, down to the passing of the statute referred to, affords an answer to that question in the negative. It is not a single instance, or only a few instances, of a pauper being placed in one or more of these cottages, that can be considered as giving to them the class or character to which they belong; but it must be the

general purpose to which they were applied, during the whole or the greater part of the period to which reference is made. And we think the preponderancy of the evidence is very great, that they were during that period let out by the parish to independent labourers, at annual rents; such rents being applied by the parish officers, not to the ordinary purposes of the poor-rate, but for the charitable purposes to which the funds out of which the cottages were in part originally built, were destined by former benefactors to the parish. And we think this the more evident, from the distinction in the special case between the user of these cottages, and the others which are marked with the letters X, Y, and Z, in which latter it is stated, that the paupers of the parish have been received, lodged, and maintained, at the expense of the poorrate. If, then, the cottages in question do not come within the first part of the interpretation, do they fall within the latter part, which has a wider and a more comprehensive range? Are they buildings purchased, erected, hired, or used, at the expense of the poor-rate, by any parish, &c., for the reception, employment, or relief of any poor person therein, at the expense of such parish?" This latter description, it is to be observed, involves two considerations: first, at whose cost the building was originally erected or purchased; and, secondly, the purpose to which it is put and employed by the parish. But although these considerations are separate and distinct from each other, yet unless both parts of the description concur, and are found to apply to the same building, the case cannot, as it appears to us, be held to fall within the second branch of the statutory interpretation.

First, if the only inquiry necessary to be made were this, whether these cottages were purchased or erected, or hired, at the expense of the poor-rate, the answer would be, that as to part of the original cost of the building, namely, to the extent of 2007., they were clearly not built at the expense of the poor-rate; and as to the residue of such cost, namely, to the extent of 541l., strictly speaking, they were not built out of the poor-rate, though undoubtedly they were built out of a fund raised by the operation of the Inclosure Act, the 29 Geo. 2,

which was placed in the hands of the churchwardens and overseers, to be applied as the poor-rates are, and in relief of the poor-rates; so that it would be very difficult to contend, that the last-mentioned sum is not to be considered as poor-rate, within the meaning of this act. As to the 2007., indeed, if traced from its origin, it appears to be a fund originally composed. out of benefactions given to the parish for particular charities, increased from time to time by the alteration of the property which had been purchased by the original fund, and other contributions, but still maintaining its character of a separate and distinct fund from the poor-rate; the distribution of the annual produce thereof being always set apart, and applied for those purposes of charity for which it appeared to be originally destined. It must be admitted, however, that if the inquiry rested upon the single point of the cost of the building, it would be difficult to decide, with any satisfaction, whether these cottages formed workhouses or not. But there is coupled and combined with this description in the statute, the purpose to which the buildings are applied. And we think, as we have already stated, that these cottages, upon the facts set out in the special case, were neither purchased, erected, nor used for the reception, employment, or relief of poor persons therein, that is, of parish paupers, at the expense of the parish.

Having arrived at this conclusion, with respect to the cottages, it is almost unnecessary to say, that the same opinion will extend to the pieces of ground behind each, which are marked in the plan as Nos. 38, 39, 40, and 41, which pieces of ground form part of, and are occupied with the same. And as to the thirty-seven small closes of land, which, according to the case, have been usually allotted by the parish officers to the labouring inhabitants of the parish for the purposes of gardens, as the case states expressly, that such allotments were made without any reference to the labourers contributing or not contributing to the poor-rate of the parish, or receiving or not receiving parochial relief, we cannot see any circumstance belonging to the use of such land which can bring it within the interpretation of a workhouse as given by the statute.

Order of Justices-Warrant of Commitment, Sufficiency of.

An order of Justices, made under 11 Geo. 2. c. 19. s. 4, recited, that the goods removed by the tenant were under the value of 50l., and that the party seeking the order had exhibited a complaint in writing. Upon refusal to obey the order, a warrant of commitment was made out, and the party charged by it sent to gaol-Held, that the warrant of commitment was not void for omitting to state that a complaint was exhibited in writing, as the warrant referred to the order, in which that fact expressly appeared.

This was an action of trespass for assault and false imprisonment, to which there was a plea of not guilty.

At the trial, before Tindal, C.J., at the last Assizes for Kent, it appeared, that the plaintiff lived in Woolwich, and that, two different persons claiming to be his landlord, he paid the rent that was due to one of them, and left the premises; upon which the other claimant applied to the defendants, who were Justices of the county, under the statute 11 Geo. 2. c. 19. s. 4, (the goods being under the value of 501.,) who, after examining into the facts of the case, made an order, upon a disobedience of which a warrant of commitment was made out, and the plaintiff was taken into custody and committed to Maidstone gaol for six calendar months, with hard labour. The order of the Justices and the warrant of commitment were put in upon the trial, and were as follows::

"Kent to wit. Be it remembered, that on the 21st day of April, in the year of our Lord 1837, at Woolwich, in the county of Kent, Mary Curran, of Woolwich aforesaid, in the said county of Kent, widow, in

* This case is reported by John Deedes, Esq.

mas Maryon Wilson, Bart., and Sir John Webb, Knt., two of His Majesty's Justices. of the Peace, in and for the said county, residing near the place whence the goods and chattels hereinafter mentioned were removed, (we, or either of us, not being interested in the messuage and premises. whence the goods and chattels were removed as hereinafter mentioned,) and informed us in writing, that on the 19th of April then instant, Thomas Coster, late of the parish of Woolwich aforesaid, labourer, unlawfully did fraudulently convey away, and carry off from a certain messuage and premises, situate and being in Short's Alley, in the parish of Woolwich aforesaid, in the said county, whereof the said T. Coster had been for some time previous, and was then and there the tenant by the month, under and from her the said Mary Curran, upon the holding of which said messuage and premises, a certain rent, that is to say, the sum of 5l. 5s. 10d. of lawful British money, was then and there reserved, due, and payable from the said Thomas Coster, to the said Mary Curran, certain goods and chattels of the said Thomas Coster, to prevent the said Mary Curran from distraining the same, for the said sum of money, being such arrears of rent so reserved, due, and payable as aforesaid, the value of such goods and chattels so as aforesaid conveyed and carried off not exceeding the value of 501. of lawful money of Great Britain, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided: whereupon the said Thomas Coster, after being duly summoned to answer the said charge in the said information, appeared on this 12th day of May in the year of our Lord 1837, at Woolwich aforesaid, in the said county, before us the said Justices, and having heard the charge_contained in the said information, declared that he was not guilty of the said offence: whereupon we, the said Justices, did proceed to examine into the truth of the said charge contained in the said information, and did examine several credible witnesses, being all proper witnesses, upon oath, as to the truth of such charge and it manifestly appearing to us, that the said Thomas Coster is guilty of the said offence charged upon him in the said information, we do hereby deter

:

mine, declare, and adjudge, that the said Thomas Coster is guilty of the said offence with which he is so charged; and by this our order, under our hands and seals, do declare and adjudge the said Thomas Coster, forthwith to pay to the said Mary Curran, the landlord of the said messuage and premises, the sum of 10. 11s. Sd. of lawful money of Great Britain, (which we have inquired into and ascertained to be double the value of the said goods and chattels in the said information mentioned,) according to the form of the statute in that case made and provided. Given under our hands and seals this 12th day of May in the year of our Lord 1837.

"Thomas Maryon Wilson, (L.s.) "John Webb, (L.S.)"

"Kent to wit. To the constable of the parish of Woolwich, in the county of Kent, and also to the keeper of the house of correction at Maidstone, in the said county. Whereas Thomas Coster, late of the parish of Woolwich, in the county of Kent, labourer, was, by an order dated the 12th day of May 1837, under the hands and seals of us, Sir Thomas Maryon Wilson, Bart., and Sir John Webb, Knt., two of her Majesty's Justices of the Peace acting in and for the said county of Kent, residing near the place whence the goods and chattels hereinafter mentioned were removed, and not being interested in the messuage and premises whence such goods and chattels were removed, as hereinafter mentioned, ordered to pay the sum of 10l. 11s. Sd., of lawful money of Great Britain, to Mary Curran, of Woolwich aforesaid, in the said county, widow, being double the value of certain goods and chattels of the said Thomas Coster, was then and there, before us, duly found, adjudged, and declared guilty of having fraudulently conveyed away and carried off from a certain messuage and premises, situate in Short's Alley, in the parish of Woolwich aforesaid, in the said county, whereof the said Thomas Coster had been for some time previous, and was then and there the tenant, by the month, under and from her, the said Mary Curran, to prevent the said Mary Curran from distraining the said goods and chattels for arrears of rent due to the said Mary Curran from the said Thomas Coster, for the said messuage

and premises: And whereas the said Tho-
mas Coster, having notice of our said
order, has refused and neglected to pay,
and hath not paid the said sum of 107.11s. 8d.
pursuant thereunto; and the same hath
been fully proved before us: And whereas
it
appears to us, by the return of Joseph
Butterfill, constable of the parish of Wool-
wich, dated this 23rd day of June instant,
that he hath made diligent search for, but
doth not know of nor can find any goods
and chattels of the said Thomas Coster,
by distress and sale whereof the said sum
of 107. 11s. 8d. may be levied, pursuant to
our warrant duly made and issued for the
levying the said sum of 101. 11s. 8d., by
distress and sale of the goods and chattels
of the said Thomas Coster: These are
therefore to command you, the said con-
stable of Woolwich aforesaid, to apprehend
the said Thomas Coster, and convey him
to the said house of correction at Maid-
stone aforesaid, and deliver him there to
the said keeper of the house of correc-
tion: And these are also to command you,
the said keeper of the said house of correc-
tion, to receive him, the said Thomas Coster,
into the said house of correction, and
there to keep him to hard labour, without
bail or mainprize, for the space of six
months, unless the said sum of 107. 11s. 8d.,
so ordered to be paid as aforesaid, shall be
sooner satisfied. Given under our hands
and seals at Woolwich aforesaid, in the
said county of Kent, the 23rd day of June,
in the year of our Lord 1837.

"Thomas Maryon Wilson (L.S.)
"John Webb (L.s.)"

Upon the order of Justices being read

Platt objected, that as this was a case of conflicting title to the premises, the Magistrates had no power to interfere in the case, and that the order was a nullity. Other objections were also taken to the warrant of commitment, but the learned Chief Justice overruled them, and the jury found a verdict for the defendants.

Platt now applied to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection. The objections that were taken ought to have prevailed at the trial, and the jury should have been directed to find a verdict for the plaintiff, as the warrant of commitment is bad upon the face of it; and Coster, being brought up by

habeas corpus before Patteson, J., was discharged by him on the ground of its invalidity. Section 4 of the act gives jurisdiction to the Magistrates (1). The warrant of commitment alludes to no complaint having been made in writing, which the statute requires.

[PARKE, B.-That is all recited in the order.]

LORD ABINGER, C.B.-I see no objection to the order or the warrant. The Magistrates are to inquire into the value of the goods-they state the value of the goods being under 50%., as part of the charge: then they state they examined on oath credible witnesses as to the truth of such charge, and then they find the party guilty of the offence charged.

PARKE, B.-In order to give the Justices jurisdiction, it is necessary that the value of the goods should be under 501.,

(1) Section 4. "Provided always, that where the goods and chattels so fraudulently carried off or concealed shall not exceed the value of 50l., it shall and may be lawful for the landlord or landlords from whose estate such goods or chattels were removed, his, her, or their bailiff, servant, or agent,

in bis, her, or their behalf, to exhibit a complaint in writing against such offender or offenders before two or more Justices of the Peace of the same county, riding, or division of such county, residing near the place whence such goods and chattels were removed, or near the place where the same were found, not being interested in the lands or tenements whence such goods were removed, who may summon the parties concerned, examine the fact, and all proper witnesses upon oath, or, if any such witness be one of the people called Quakers, upon affirmation required by law, and in a summary way determine whether such person or persons be guilty of the offence with which he or they are charged; and to inquire in like manner of the value of the goods and chattels by him, her, or them respectively so fraudulently carried off or concealed as aforesaid, and upon full proof of the offence, by order under their hands and seals, the Justices may and shall adjudge the offender or offenders to pay double the value of the said goods and chattels to such landlord or landlords, his, her, or their bailiff, servant, or agent, at such time as the said Justices shall appoint; and in case the offender or offenders, having notice of such order, shall refuse or neglect so to do, may and shall, by warrant under their hands and seals, levy the same by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the offender or offenders; and for want of such distress, may commit the offender or offenders to the house of correction, there to be kept to hard labour, without bail or mainprize, for the space of six months, unless the money so ordered to be paid as aforesaid shall be Sooner satisfied."

NEW SERIES, VII.-MAG. CAS.

and that they should have an information in writing both of those matters appear upon the order. Then they are to adjudicate upon the merits. It is said, that the warrant does not shew that there was any complaint in writing; but the warrant recites the order, which clearly does shew it, and that is sufficient.

ALDERSON, B.-If you will only construe the warrant fairly and candidly, it will appear from it, and by reference to the order, that the requisites of the statute have been complied with. It is always attempted to construe the proceedings of Magistrates with the greatest strictness, instead of giving to them a fair and liberal construction.

Poor Rate-Occupation.

A. engaged to serve R. & Co. as a clerk and brewer, at an annual salary, with the privilege of living in a house in the brewery yard. He did live there for some time, but afterwards took another house, in his own name, though the landlord stated that he considered R. & Co. to be his tenants. lived in this house, but R. & Co. paid the rent and taxes, which were assessed upon A: -Held, that he was liable to be rated to the poor-rate in respect of the occupation of this latter house.

A.

On appeal at the West Riding of Yorkshire Sessions 1836, against a rate or assessment to the poor-rate for the parish of Sheffield, the rate was confirmed, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following

CASE.

The rate was made July 1, 1835, and the appellant was rated thus:- "Occupier, Wall Lynn-Proprietor, George Rodgers

Description of property, house 22s. 6d., garden 1s. 6d.-Amount, 11. 4s."

Catherine Eyre and Hannah Rawson are the proprietors of a brewery in the township of Sheffield, and the appellant is their servant and head brewer. From the year 1828, down to February 1833, the appellant resided in a house situate in the

M