Page images
PDF
EPUB

23

2. On the 6th April, 1864, the ship Oscar, a steam-
ip carrying passengers between London and Leith,
ft London on her voyage to Leith. From London
the Nore, The Oscar was under the care of Joseph
ray, the respondent, a pilot duly licensed by the
rinity House of London but on his arrival at the
ore, Robert Campbell Hossack, the appellant, who
as master of the vessel, dismissed the respondent,
nd himself piloted the vessel for the remainder of the
oyage. The respondent, at the time of his dismissal,
fered to continue his pilotage and charge of The Os-
ar as far as Orfordness, but his services were refused
y the appellant, who contended, and contends, that
e was entitled to pilot The Oscar from the Nore to
Orfordness, and thence on the remainder of the voyage
o Leith, by virtue of a license granted to him by the
master and assistants of the Trinity House at Leith.
3. The license was in the following form

"No. 384.

[ocr errors]

House of London, and no other pilotage certificate or license than that set out above; and no pilot was then on board the ship except the appellant, the master thereof, being so licensed as aforesaid.

5. On the 17th June, 1864, an information was preferred by the Trinity House of London, in the name of the respondent, against the appellant, under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, before one of the magistrates of the Thames police court, charging him with navigating The Oscar on the occas sion aforesaid from the Nore to Orfordness, without employing a duly qualified pilot within the meaning of that act.

to on the argument.

6. The appellant and respondent appeared before one of the magistrates of that court, when, the abovementioned facts having been proved, the magistrate, at the request and by the consent of the parties, im posed on the present appellant a penalty of 10%., subo od ject to the opinion of the Court on the present case. ** 7. For many years, and up to the year 1797, a body "To all to whom these presents shall come. Whereas politic and corporate existed at Leith, under the name by royal charter from his late Majesty King George III, and style of "The Corporation of the Master and Asdated the 27th July, 1797, and confirmed by act of Par-sistants of the Trinity House of Leith." In that year liament in the first year of the reign of his Majesty this body obtained from the Crown a charter, a copy King George IV, the master and assistants of the of which accompanies this case, and may be referred Trinity House at Leith, in the county of Edinburgh, are empowered at any general meeting of the corpora- 8. This charter contains the following recital and tion, constituted under the name and style aforesaid, grant:" And whereas it has been humbly represented or by any committee of their number to be appointed to his Majesty, that notwithstanding the great increase for the special purpose, from time to time to examine of trade and navigation of these realms in general, and any or all such person or persons as the members pre- of that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland sent at such general meeting, or the majority of them, in particular, there is no body corporate or politic in shall think fit and proper, upon his or their skill, Scotland aforesaid invested with full power and au knowledge, and experience in navigating, piloting, and thority to superintend the interests of navigation, and conducting her Majesty's ships and vessels of war, to examine and license pilots for the better and more and all other ships and vessels, of whatever descrip- safely piloting and navigating the ships of his Ma tion, sailing and navigating up and down, inwards jesty and of his liege subjects in, through, and along and outwards, of the Frith of Forth, through the seas the adjoining seas, friths, and coasts. And whereas it and along the coasts and islands of the Northern and would manifestly tend to the increase of good governGerman Oceans, and in, and through, and along, or ment and navigation in these realms, and to the safety or upon the seas, friths, sounds, bays, inlets, and along of the ships and vessels of his Majesty and of his subthe coasts of Scotland, and of the Orkney, Shetland, jects, were the said society or corporation to be inand Lewis islands, and the said public examination vested with sufficient authority for that purpose. His being so had and made, the said corporation are em- Majesty, therefore, for himself, his heirs and succespowered to license and authorise, under their common sors, hereby further gives and grants unto the said seal, all or any of such persons so examined and found master and assistants of the Trinity House of Leith, in qualified to act as pilot or pilots for all such ships or the county of Edinburgh, and to their successors in all vessels, either generally over the whole, or within such time coming, full power, warrant, and authority to particular part or parts, of the bounds or limits before examine and license pilots for the purposes aforesaid, mentioned as shall be expressed in the license, accord-in manner following; that is to say, that from hence ing as such person or persons, upon his or their examinations aforesaid, may or shall be found properly qualified.

[ocr errors]

forth and hereafter it shall and may be lawful to and for the said society or corporation, at any general meeting from time to time, to examine such person We, therefore, the master and assistants of the or persons as to the members present at such general said, Trinity House at er hereof, Robert Campbell Leith, do appoint, during our meeting, or the major part of them, may seem proper, pleasure only, the Hossack, he having been examined and fotmd quali-vigating, piloting, and conducting his Majesty's ships upon their skill, knowledge, and experience in the na fied as an able and experienced pilot, to take charge and vessels of war, and all other ships and vessels of of any ship or vessel from Leith Roads eastward to whatever name or names they may be known or called, St. Abb's Head, and southwards along the east coast as well up as down, inwards, and outwards of the Frith of England to Orfordness, thence to the Nore, and of Forth, as in and through the seas and friths, and vice versâ; and we therefore require all officers ap- along the coasts and islands of the Northern and Ger pointed for impressing seamen or watermen, to take man Oceans; and the said public examination being notice hereof, and not to give the said Robert Camp-so had and made as aforesaid, and the society or corbell Hossack any trouble or molestation in the execu-poration, or such majority, being satisfied of the skill, tion of his said office of pilot, In testimony whereof knowledge, and experience of such person or persons we have caused the common seal of the corporation to as aforesaid, it shall and may be lawful to and for the be hereunto affixed, the 22nd December, 1860."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Oscar was a ship carrying passengers within the meaning of sect: 354 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. hope bioing to sell

4. At the time when the ship was piloted from the Nore to Orfordness by the appellant as aforesaid, he held no pilotage certificate or license from the Trinity

said society or corporation, under their common seal, to license and authorise all or any of the said persons so examined and found qualified to act in the capacity of pilot or pilots for all such ships or vessels, and over the whole, or within such part of the bounds or limits before mentioned, as the said person or persons, upon his or their examination as aforesaid, may or shall be

found properly qualified; such person or persons being always obliged to pay to the treasurer of the said society or corporation for the time being, or the committee for executing the said office, as the case may be, for the use and benefit of the said society or corporation, such sum or sums of money as, by any bye-law to be made and passed for that purpose, may be settled and ordered to be paid by the said society or corporation as the fee or fees payable to them on granting such license or warrant, or a certificate thereof, reserving, nevertheless, the right of the lord provost, magistrates, and council of the city of Edinburgh, and their successors in office, of appointing pilots for the navigation of the port, harbour, and roads of Leith and their pertinents, in the same way and manner as they did and do enjoy the same."

9. After the granting of this charter an act was passed in the year 1821, intituled "An Act for the Regulation of the Corporation of the Master and Assistants of the Trinity House of Leith." By this act the rights and privileges granted and confirmed by this charter were confirmed, and a schedule of the rates or prices to be received by pilots licensed by the said corporation, was contained in the act.

10. The Trinity House of Leith have from the time of the charter until the present time granted licenses to masters of vessels and others to pilot vessels in the form set out above; but the Trinity House of London have never been aware of the granting of such licenses, or that the power to grant such licenses was ever claimed by the Trinity House of Leith. Under these licenses many vessels have in fact been piloted between the Nore and Orfordness.

11. By sect. 1 of the 5 Geo. 2, s. 20 (1732), after reciting that the Trinity House of London, by long usage and by virtue of divers letters-patent granted to them by the Crown, had been authorised and empowered to appoint pilots, landsmen, or guides to conduct ships and vessels out of the rivers Thames and Medway through the North Channel, to or by Orfordness, and round the Long Sandhead into the Downs, and from and by Orfordness up the North Channel and the rivers Thames and Medway, it was enacted, that from and after the 24th June, 1732, if any person should take upon himself the charge of any ship or vessel, as pilot, down the river Thames, or through the North Channel to or by Orfordness, or round the Long Sandhead into the Downs, or down the South Channel into the Downs, or from or by Orfordness up the North Channel, or the river of Thames, or the river Medway, other than such person as should be licensed and authorised to act as a pilot by the Trinity House of London, every person so offending, and being lawfully convicted, should for every such offence forfeit the sum of 201.

vessels navigating up and down, or upon the rives of Thames and Medway, and all and every the sevenl channels, creeks, and docks thereof or there ar leading or adjoining thereunto, as well betwee Or fordness and London Bridge as from Londor Be to the Downs, and from the Downs westward & r as the Isle of Wight, and in the English C from the Isle of Wight up to London Bridge ra vessels were to be conducted and piloted by pilots so appointed and licensed, and by no other pin or persons whatsoever.

14. By sect. 2 of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 125, the Trinity House of London was required to license plate fr the purpose of conducting ships navigating within the last-mentioned limits; and it was provided the al ships navigating within these limits (with ceram erceptions in the act specially mentioned) should be conducted and piloted, within the limits aforesaid, by such pilots so to be appointed and licensed, and by m other pilots or persons whomsoever.

15. Either party shall be at liberty, on the aquat of this case, to refer to any statutes or chartes relate to the matters in question, as if they were serted in this case.

16. The question for the opinion of the Car whether the master of The Oscar (the appe on the 6th April, 1864, qualified by the la the Trinity House of Leith, held by him as alre mentioned, to pilot the ship between the Nure and Orfordness.

If the Court should be of opinion that this questi should be answered in the affirmative, then the conviction is to be confirmed. If the Court should be of the contrary opinion, then the said conviction shall be quashed,

Sir R. P. Collier, S. G. (Maude with him), for respondent.-The Trinity House of Leith have thority to license pilots for the part of the cast in question, The Trinity House of London was iner porated in the reign of James II, and their powers & defined by the 5 Geo. 2, c. 21, s. 1, the 48 Gen 3 c. 104, s. 2, and the 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 2. The for of these enactments recites the authority of the poration to appoint pilots for the rivers of Th and Medway, and thence to Orfordness. In 1797 charter of the Trinity House of Leith was gra Then comes the 48 Geo. 3, c. 104, s. 2, conferring ditional powers to the London Trinity House, e appointment of pilots between Orfordness and La don Bridge, from London Bridge to the Downs, and westward as far as the Isle of Wight; and to the s effect are the powers conferred upon the corporatie by the 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, s. 2. The next statute in point c time bearing upon the question, is the 1 Geo. 4, c. XXX reciting the charter of the Leith Trinity House, and 12. By sect. 2 of the 48 Geo. 3, c. 104 (1808), the confirming the same; and this charter and statute, Trinity Honse of London was required to license is contended, must be so read as not to interfere with pilots for the purpose of conducting ships navigating the existing rights and powers of the Trinity Ho up and down or upon the rivers of Thames or Med- of London; but, supposing it to confer co-ordina way, and all and every the several channels, creeks, jurisdiction upon the Leith Corporation, this must be and docks thereof or therein, or leading or adjoin- held to be taken away by the 6 Geo. 4, c. 125.2 ing thereto, as well between Orfordness and London The powers of the Trinity House of London is Bridge as from London Bridge to the Downs, and defined in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (175 from the Downs westward, as far as the Isle of Vict. c. 104), sect. 370, which divides the area of their Wight up to London Bridge." And such vessels jurisdiction into three districts, in respect of all or were to be conducted and piloted by such pilots so of which they are to appoint, and license pilots. The appointed and licensed, and by no other pilots or view contended for is further strengthened by the persons whomsoever, except appointed by the So-fact, that the tables of rates for pilotage have refe ciety or Fellowship of the Trinity House of Dover rence only to places in Scotland north of Leith, a (commonly called Cinque Ports Pilots), within the not southward. Then, secondly, limits there mentioned.

[ocr errors]

even if the La

13. By sect. 2 of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 39, the Trinity pilots, this is not a "pilotage certificate" enabling the Trinity House were empowered to grant licenses House of London was required to appoint and license master of a ship, or his mate, to pilot the same, unde

pilots for the purpose of conducting all ships and sect. 354 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854.

23

Coleridge, Q. C. (R. E. Turner with him), for the appellant. The terms of the charter give the Trinity House of Leith authority to license pilots "inwards and outwards of the Frith of Forth, and along the Northern and German Oceans." The "North Sea" and "German Ocean" are, in fact, the same thing, and is described in Keith Johnston's Dictionary of Geography as extending from the Straits of Dover to the Shetland Isles; the Leith Trinity House in licensing the appellant were, therefore, acting within the limits of their charter, and the conviction was wrong. Then comes the question, whether the powers conferred by their charter have been since abridged or interfered

with? And it is to be observed that in the statutes which passed subsequently to the granting of the Leith charter, there is a general clause saving the jurisdictions granted by statute or charter. (See sect. 29 of the 48 Geo. 3, c. 104, and sect. 32 of the 52 Geo. 3, c. 39; and also sect. 89 of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 125). The conviction was, therefore, improper.

Sir R. P. Collier, in reply.

unmistakeably to the conclusion that the powers of the
Leith Trinity House are confined to Scotland; and,
moreover, it is difficult to see why the powers exer-
cised by the London Trinity House should be trans-
ferred to the Scotch tribunal. It is impossible, there-
fore, to entertain the idea that either by the charter
or the act it was intended to give the Trinity House
at Leith the extended jurisdiction which they have
taken upon themselves to exercise.
SHEE, J., concurred.-Conviction affirmed.

[Before COCKBURN, C. J., BLACKBURN, Mellor, and
SHEE, JJ.]

THE BOARD OF GUARDIANS OF THE Kettering
UNION, Apps., THE COMMITTEE AND DIRECTORS
OF THE NORTHAMPTON GENERAL LUNATIC ASYLUM,
Resps.-June 12.

Pauper lunatic-Order of maintenance-Appeal-16 &
17 Vict. c. 97, 88. 96, 108, 128.

An order of justices, under sect. 96 of stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, directing a board of guardians from one of the parishes, of which a pauper had been removed to the County Lunatic Asylum, to pay to the treasurer thereof the costs of maintenance of such pauper, is merely an interim order, the object of which is to provide for his support until his parish of settlement can be discovered, or failing that, until the charges of his maintenance are thrown upon the county, and against such order no appeal lies:-So held by Cockburn, C. J., Mellor and Shee, JJ.; Blackburn, J., dissenting, but with hesitation, from the majority of the Court.

COCKBURN, C. J.-I am of opinion that this conviction should be affirmed, inasmuch as it is clear, that by the charter relied upon by the appellant, the jurisdiction of the Trinity House of Leith is limited to Scotland. At the time of the granting of this charter, there was in existence an act of Parliament imposing a penalty upon any person navigating a ship between the Nore and Orfordness without a license from the Trinity House of London; and it is not to be supposed that the Legislature intended to empower the Trinity House of Leith to legalise, by virtue of their charter, that which was already declared to be illegal by an act of Parliament; and so to repeal the act by On the 23rd September, 1864, two of the justices implication. If we look at stat. 1 Geo. 4, c. xxxvii, we of the borough of Northampton made an order on find that its object was the confirmation of former the appellants, directing them to pay the weekly sum powers, and then, by sect. 32, gives the power to the of 12s. 6d. from the 2nd April, 1863, to the 1st July, Trinity House of Leith to grant licenses, which power 1864, to the treasurer of the Northamptonshire Geis, in terms, confined to the coast of Scotland and the neral Lunatic Hospital towards the maintenance of adjacent islands. The charges and rates of pilotage one William Voss, a pauper lunatic therein confined. given in Schedule (C.) are confined to that coast, and The said order recited that Voss was a pauper lunatic, the provisions for the prevention of abuses and the and that between the above-mentioned dates he had enforcement of penalties, in sect. 58, have reference been kept in the hospital in pursuance of the statute solely to the local jurisdiction of Scotland. It is plain, in such case made and provided; that during the therefore, that the act conferring jurisdiction on the whole period of his confinement he was chargeable to Leith Trinity House has reference to Scotland, and to the appellants' union, from one of the constituent Scotland only. The object and policy of the Legis- parishes of which he had been sent, and that he had lature was manifestly to license persons being tho- no real or personal estate applicable to his mainteroughly conversant with particular districts, as pilots nance. The guardians of the appellant union appealed for those districts, and it would be absurd to suppose to the borough quarter sessions holden on the 6th that it ever was intended to empower a local corpo- January, 1865, and upon the hearing of the appeal ration to license persons conversant only with a par- the order was quashed. A rule for a certiorari was ticular locality, to act as pilots for the entire length subsequently obtained to bring up the order of sesof the British coast. If we came to such a conclusions quashing the order of the justices, on the ground sion, the effect would be, to create a conflict of jurisdiction the most mischievous and embarrassing. I think, therefore, that by the true construction of this charter, the power of the Trinity House of Leith is confined to Scotland, and that under it they have no jurisdiction to grant such a license as is here in ques-pital, or licensed house in which any pauper lunatic is con

tion.

CROMPTON, J.-No one on reading this charter can, in my opinion, doubt for a moment that it was intended to bear the construction contended for by the Solicitor-General, although the words "Northern or German Ocean" used therein, give some colour to the argument on the other side. The matters seems clear enough when we consider the state of the law at the time of the passing of the 1 Geo. 4, c. xxxvii, the fact that the rates of pilotage and other charges have reference to Scotland only, and that the bye-laws are to be approved by the Lords Justices of Scotland, and hung up in the custom houses of the Scotch ports. These considerations, amongst others, seem to point

* Under sect. 96 of stat. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, which enacts, that "it shall be lawful for the justice, by whom any pauper house under the powers of this act, or for any two justices of lunatic is sent to an asylum, registered hospital, or licensed

the county or borough in which the asylum, registered hos

fined is situate, or from any part of which any pauper lunatic has been sent, or for any two justices, being visitors of such asylum or licensed house, to make an order upon the guardians of the union or parish (if not an union or under a board of guardians) from which, or at the instance of any officer or officiating clergyman of which, such lunatic is or has been sent for confinement, for payment to the treasurer, officer, or proprietor of the asylum, registered hospital, or licensed house of the reasonable charges of the lodging, such asylum, hospital, or house; and any such order may maintenance, medicine, clothing, and care of such lunatic in be retrospective or prospective, or partly retrospective and partly prospective; and the guardians or overseers on whom such order shall be made, shall from time to time pay to the said treasurer, officer, or proprietor the charges aforesaid."

that the court of quarter sessions had no jurisdiction to make it, there being by law no appeal to that court from the order of justices complained of to Merewether, for the appellants. It is clear, upon a general consideration of all the sections of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, which have reference to the question of appeal, that the intention of the Legislature was, that an appeal should lie against all orders made by jus tices under the provisions of the act. Sect. 1289 gives an appeal to any person who thinks himself aggrieved by any order other than orders adjudicating as to the settlement of any lunatic pauper, and providing for his maintenance; an appeal, therefore, lies in the present case, inasmuch as the order is one for the maintenance of a lunatic, and is altogether silent upon the question of settlement. Sect. 108 enables the guardians of an union or parish to appeal against orders adjudging the settlement of a pauper; and the object of sect. 128 was to give the power of appealing to persons who would otherwise be debarred from doing so. Sect. 106 gives the right of appeal to any person feeling aggrieved by the refusal of an order of the justice or justices; and it could not be the intention that where an order is improperly made, there should be no appeal. It will be contended that the present is an interim order, but it would be most unreasonable that the appellants should be bound by an ex parte order made on insufficient or mistaken grounds.

Poland and Sills, for the respondents.-This is merely an interim order for the necessary maintenance of the lunatic, until the parish of his settlement can be ascertained, and against such an order the act gives no appeal. Nor does this construction of the act create any hardship, inasmuch as sect. 97 provides for the repayment to the parish from which the lunatic has been sent to the asylum, of the charges incurred in his maintenance by the parish of his settlement, when discovered; and in case the parish of settlement cannot be discovered, then the order for repayment of these charges is to be made upon the county, under the 98th section. In the latter case the act gives no appeal against an order, however improperly made, the reason being that the order is an interim order merely

The following are the material sections:-Sect, 106,"If any person feel aggrieved by any refusal of an order of any justice or justices as aforesaid, such person may appeal to the next general quarter sessions of the peace for the county or borough where the matter of appeal has arisen, the person so appealing having given to the justice or justices against whom such appeal is made fourteen clear days' notice of such appeal; and such sessions are hereby authorised and required to hear and determine the matter of such appeal in a summary way, and their determination shall be final and conclusive." om no? quos rody bite propty 12-adty; tan Sect. 108. "If the guardians of any union or parish feel aggrieved by any such order, as aforesaid, adjudging the settlement of any lunatic, they or he may appeal against the same to the next general quarter sessions of the peace for the county which such order has been obtained, or in which the union or parish obtaining such order is situate, or in case such parish or union extend into several jurisdictions, then to the next general quarter sessions of the peace for the county or borough in which the asylum; regis tered hospital, or licensed house in which such dunatic is or has been confined is situate; and such sessions, upon hear ing the said appeal shall have full power finally to determine the matter."1992 of doed en bortfor 79d1 996649361 m 7. Sect. 128. "Any person who thinks himself aggrieved by any order or determination of any justices under this act, other than orders adjudicating the settlement of any lunatic pauper, and providing for his maintenance, may, within four calendar months after such order or determination made or given, appeal to the general or quarter sessions, the person appealing having first given at least fourteen clear days' notice in writing of such appeal, and the nature and matter thereof, to the person appealed against."en

[ocr errors]

it being open to the county at any time to inquire as to the parish of settlement, and there being nothing conclusive in the order by which he rate is made chargeable thereto,, (Wilson v. Tu ever of Liverpool, 17 Q. B. 303). Sect. 108 give to sach appeal as the present, but only against orden udg. ing the settlement. Nor does sect. 128 appman peals by guardians or overseers, nor is the m provided under this section required, or, indeed, cable in cases of appeals by guardians or overster, COCKBURN, C.J.-I am of opinion that this rh should be made absolute. The clauses in the act upea which the question turns are certainly obscure and open to doubt; but upon the whole, I think there was no appeal from the order in question to the court of quarter sessions. The order was on the union fr which the lunatic had been sent to the asylum for hw maintenance; and the union might immediately get rid of their liability under it in one of two AYA, TIL either by shewing that the settlement of the paper was in some other parish, in adjudicating which the justices would be bound to make an order for the maintenance of the lunatic upon the parish of ment; or, in case the parish of settlement wait t be ascertained, the justices would be bound whe an order for the maintenance of the lunatic pa parish in which they adjudicated his settlement wi or if they were unable to ascertain the parish of ether ment, then by the act of Parliament they wood be authorised to apply for, and the justices would be bound to make, an order upon the county for the maintenance of the lunatic out of the county fund In either case, therefore, the order of maintenan simply an interim order; and I can readily unde why the Legislature, in making provision for the ce of an appeal against the order of maintenance fou on the adjudication of settlement, may have thought seeing the merely temporary and transient inc nience to which the parish from which the lunate sent may be subjected, should not have thought i necessary to give them any right of appeal. More over, upon looking at those sections of the act which relate to the power of appeal, it seems to me that the machinery prescribed by the act in the case of ade dication of settlement, and the machinery provided for appeal, in other cases, is so entirely different, that the machinery to which it would be necessary to rest to, if this appeal lay, viz. the machinery prescribed in sect. 128, is wholly inapplicable to the case of appeal by parish officers, Parish officers are authorised to appeal when there has been an adjudication of settle ment, and an order for maintenance founded aper such adjudication; but no particular terms are posed upon them. But when we come to sect. 128, from which the terms "overseers" rish officers" are omitted, and are dealing with the term "person," we find an entirely different mary provided, as to recognisances, &c., and as to the use within which the appeal is to be brought them chinery is, in fact, of an entirely distinct and diferent character. Then, looking to that fact alone, and ap plying it to the circumstances of the case, we find that in one case where the appeal is given, viz. in sect. 108 the terms are used "the guardians of any union parish, or the overseers of any parish" but when we come to sect. 128, the word used is person," and o other. I assume from this, that what the Legiskture intended was this: If upon an adjudication of se tlement, and an order of maintenance founded there on, the guardians of the union or the officers of the parish feel, that they are aggrieved by an order of maintenance founded on an adjudication which they believe to be an unjust one, they have a right to ap peal. In all other cases the words " any person wh

I

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

thinks himself aggrieved," must receive a different sig nification. Many instances might be mentioned in which persons might be aggrieved, as distinguished from parish officers or the guardians of the union, by an order made by the justices under this act; and I cannot help thinking that the term "person" is not intended to apply to a parish officer. And I consider it a sig nificant circumstance with regard to this act, that if the county, in order to get rid of a liability cast upon it in the event of a settlement not being found, come forward and suggest, or endeavour to maintain or prove, that a given parish is the parish of the pauper lunatic's settlement, they might be aggrieved by an adjudication of justices refusing to affirm that fact, and to act upon it; yet the county has no appeal, as was contended in Wilson v. The Guardians of Liver pool. Independently, however, of that case, it would be impossible to say that the county should be included under the term "person." There is no more reason why the county should not have an appeal in such a case than a parish, which, as I before remarked, only suffers such inconvenience as is consequent upon an interim and temporary order. I do not think the term "person" is to include every body and all classes of persons who may be aggrieved by an order made under the present section. It seems to me that we ought to consider the term " person," used in sect. 28, as not including the guardians of the union, or the overseers of a particular parish. The reason for introducing the exceptions which are found, appear to me tolerably manifest. The terms "person aggrieved by any order" might include a ratepayer of the county, and it may have been that this exception was introduced into the section by the act of Parliament for the purpose of excluding any person who, as a ratepayer, shall be aggrieved in a case where the Legis lature intended that the appeal, if preferred at all, should be preferred by the guardians or proper offi cers of the parish; therefore it says, "If any person aggrieved by any order of the justices other than an order made under sect. 96, in that case the appeal is to be regulated and limited by the provisions of sect. 108." It excepts, therefore, any case falling within sect. 108, but it leaves the term "person" as applicable to any of those numerous cases in which persons may be aggrieved by orders made under this act. I think, therefore, admitting the obscurity in which the ques tion is involved, that upon the whole we are warranted in saying that no appeal is given in a case like the present, and that the order must, therefore, be quashed. BLACKBURN, J.I take a different view of this case from my Lord and the rest of the Court; being of opinion that the appeal in this case does lie, and that the rule consequently should be made absolute. The question entirely depends upon the true construction of the act of Parliament; and although, by reason of the obscurity of the words employed by the Legisla ture, I express no strong opinion, I nevertheless think that, understood in their natural sense, they give the appeal. Sect. 128 gives an appeal to any person who thinks himself aggrieved by any order other than an order adjudicating as to the settlement of any lunatic pauper, and providing for his maintenance. Now, it seems to me, first of all, that in construing the act we must take the words "any person" as including every sort of person who thinks himself aggrieved by an order which does not come within the exception men tioned in the section. I think that if the guardians of the union, or the treasurer of the county, or any per son, is aggrieved by any order not coming within the exception, that those so aggrieved would come within the words "any person," and that if the order against which they seek to appeal comes within the exception, they certainly cannot appeal. The difficulty in the

case is to see what are the orders, coming within the exception of orders, adjudicating as to the settlement of any lunatic pauper, and providing for his maintenance. And it is not any great straining of the words to read them as if they were an order adjudicating as to the settlement of any lunatic pauper, and also an order providing for his maintenance; and if so, the case falls within the exception, and no appeal lies; but it seems to me that the natural construction of the words is, that they mean orders, adjudicating both as to the settlement and providing for the maintenance; so that the only case within the exception would be orders which do both those things. If that be the exact meaning of the words, then this order, which only provides for the maintenance, and does not touch the settlement, would not be within the exception, and consequently I think the appeal would lie. When we refer back to the act, we find, under sect. 94, that the justices might make an order upon the next friend of the lunatic to provide for his maintenance. This is certainly an order provididg for his maintenance. At the first glance I thought it would be a monstrous thing, that a person alleged to be the next friend of the lunatic should not have the power of appeal; but when I come to look at the section, I find there is no personal enforcing of the order against him; and, therefore, the only effect is, that if he does not obey the order, another order has to be made to sell the property, and against that order there is an appeal; therefore, it is nothing to say that the order against the next friend would be in itself binding. Then comes sect. 96, under which the justices may make an order upon the parish from which the lunatic pauper is sent, ordering the payment of a sum for maintenance, and that is the order against which in the present case the guardians appeal. Now, the first thing which struck me was this that in the case which is alleged to be the case here, of the justices having adjudicated that the person had been sent by the parish when they had never sent him at all, and that he was a pauper when he was no pauper at all, or that he was a lunatic when he was no lunatic at all, it seemed to me a very hard thing that there should not be an appeal; but when we look at it again, it does appear that this is an interim or preliminary order, and from which the parish can get its relief by shewing where the person was settled. Therefore, there can be до great absurdity in the scheme of legislation, if they were to say that should be final also. Then comes sect. 97, by which the order of adjudication of settlement is also to be an order for maintenance; so that an order under sect. 97 falls completely within the terms of the exception in sect. 128, the order adjudicating the settlement, and providing for maintenance. Then, from that we go on through several sections, till we come to sect. 108, by which it is enacted, that if the guardians of any union or parish, or overseers of any parish, feel aggrieved by any such order, adjudging the settlement of any lunatic, they may appeal in ways different from those required under the general appeal afterwards given in sect. 128. Now, it certainly struck me, upon the whole, as being the true construction of the act, that when they said any person might appeal against any order, except those adjudicating as to the settlement and providing for the maintenance, they referred us back to sect. 108, where an appeal was given against the particular class of orders which fulfilled every word, and which were orders adjudging the settlement and providing the maintenance, against which they have provided one appeal, which they have confined to the guardians of the union and the overseers of the parish, who are the natural persons to appeal. Against other orders they have provided no appeal, and these come within the

« PreviousContinue »