![handle is hein.elrpre/nmagcca0003 and id is 1 raw text is: NEW MAGISTRATES'
AND
f*unttteal tforationel' Caos,
ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN ALL THE
COURTS OF LAW AND EQUITY.
Ieg. v. Jutedices of Middlseux.--BAL COURT.
BAIL COURT.
Baster Term, 1848.
May 8.
(Before Mr. Justice EnzLB.)
Rga. v. THu JUSTICRs o MInDiIAKRRX.
'Order qf affiliation-Evidence of the mother to prore
notice of appeal-Swnday to be excluded in computing
the twenty.-four hours.
Under the 8 Vict. c. 10, s. 6, the mother of a bastard child
is a competent witness uponr 01n appeal ayoinst an order of
4ats to for the appellant the due giving of
In calculating the twenty-four hours within which, under
the 7 4 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 4, the notice qf appeal must
be given, Sunday should be exeluded. When, therefore,
as order of afiliation was made at fire o'clock on a
Saturday, and on the following Monday at ten o'clock
Native qf apeal was gives:
Held, that it was in time.
Pahley, in Hilary Term, obtained a rule calling upon
thejustios of Middlesex to show cause why a mandamus
should not issue, commanding them them to enter con-
tinuances and hear the appeal of one Richard Cooke
Aguist an order of affliation made by John Hardwick,
., one of the metropolitan police magistrates sitting
at the Marlborough-street police office, on the applica-
tion of one Mar Ann Deakins. The order in question
was made on Saturday the 2nd of October, 1847, at about
five o'clock in the aftrnoon of that day, and at the same
time the putative father (as was sworn in his affidavit)
the woman verbal notice of appeal. On the Mon-
.Cnrfo'llowing, at ten o'clock in the morning, a written
notice of appeal was served on the woman. On the
appeal eanig on for trial at the January sessions, 1848,.
e pondent called upon the apliellant to prove his
notice of appeal, which he endeavoured to do by calling
a witness to give evidence as to the verbal notice given
to the woman at the time of the making of the order,
but this failing, he proposed to call the woman herself
to whom it was given, and to take her evidence as to the
fWet; but this was objected to on her behalf, upon the
ground that she was not a competent witness; and the
Justices being of this opinion, her evidence was not re-
ceived. The Ippellant then tendered evidence of the
VOL. I. Ew SERIES.]
Reg. v. Justices ofL COddUle.%.r.-1.m. (CT.
giving of the written notice on the Monday, the 4th of
October, but it was objected that the notice was invalid, -
inasmuch as it was given too late, it not having been
served within the twenty-four hours from the making
of the order (a). In answer, it was argued that the
Sunday should be excluded from the computation. The
justices, however, held the objection to be good, and
dismissed the appeal, whereupon the present rule was
obtained.
Prendergast showed cause.-The sessions were right in
dismissing the appeal on the ground of the insufliciency
of the notice. First. the evidence of the mother was not
receivable to prove the verbal notice, the 6th section of
the m Viet. c. 10, which enncts that on the trial qf any
such appeal the justices shall hear the evidence of the said
,mothr, not applying to the preliminary proofs of notices,
but being introduced merely to remove doubts which
had existed as to whether or not on an appeal against
such an order she was a enmpetent witness on the triul
to prove the facts of the case, inasmuch as she is an
interested party. This section only makes her competent
ont the trial oj the appeal, which cannot be said to have
commenced until the pailies are properly in court, which
is not until the notices are fully proved. Secondly,
the notice given on the follnwing Monday was out
of time in not having been given within twenty-four
hours after the making of the order. The time began
to run from five o'clock on Saturday afternoon the 2nd
of October, and expired therefore at five o'clock on the
next day, which was Sunday the 3rd, and under the
terms of the statute the respondent is not entitled to
exclude the Sunday in the computation of time. At
common law there is no exclusion of the Sunday in the
computation of time within which an act must be done,
and if it is to be excluded at all, it must be so under
the provisions of the 6th section of the 29 Car. 2, c. 7,
which enacts that no person shall serve or execute
(a) The 4th section of the 7 & A Viet.c. 101, cilusts as follows:
And if within twenty-four hours after the adjudication aid makisg
of any order on the putative father as aforsid, smich putativ,
father give notice of appeal to the omo tier of the bstard child,
and %Iso within seven lays aive suileent security by reeo'gnizance
or otherwise for the payment of costs to the satitfwtion of some
one justice of the peace, it shall ie lawful for such putative father
to appeal to the generl qairter tessions,
A](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.elrpre/nmagcca0003&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most