
    The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Brookhaven against the Oversees of the Poor of the town of Southold.
    certiorari to general sessiods to re* move proceed-¿egnSyewlth points decided, ment.he Judg"
    ^Sessions must such a writ, evMence^&c6 the’ they may ”d a case.Stat"
    „ If they re fuse, this court win compel do
    The people, &c., to J. S., N. P., and J. P. 0., Esquires, three of the Judges in the Court of Common Pleas, and Jus- — • tices of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace, in and for the county of Suffolk, Greeting: Whereas an appeal was lately brought and heard in our Court of General Sessions of the Peace, in and for the said county of Suffolk, held before you, from an order made by J. R. & B. W., Esqs., two of our Justices of the Peace in and for our said county, adjudging that the settlement of J. and P., his wife, and A. their daughter, was in the town of Southold, in the said county ; and-directing their removal from the town of Broekhaven, in the said county, to the said town of S., in i*i , . _ - , _ which said appeal the Overseers of the Poor of the said town of S. were appellants, and the Overseers of the Poor of the said town of B. were respondents; and such proceedings have been had, in the said appeal, that a judgment or order has been pronounced and given in our said Court before you, against the said respondents; and we being willing for certain reasons, that the record of the said proceedings and judgment should be certified by you to our Supreme Court of Judicature, do therefore command you, that you send, under your respective seals the record of the said proceedings and judgment or order, with the process, pleadings, evidence, objections made thereto on the hearing of the said appeal, and other things touching the same, to our Justees, «fee., at, «fee., on, «fee., in as full and ample a manner as the same remain before you, together with this writ, that we may further cause to be done herein what of right ought to be done. Witness, «fee.
    
      Farlie, fyc., Cl’ks.
    
      S. B. Strong, Attorney.
    This writ was allowed by Mr. Recorder Riker, on an af ■ fidavit of Mr. Strong, counsel for the respondents in the Court of Sessions, detailing the commencement of the cause there, the evidence, points made, and the decisions thereon, with the order of the Sessions quashing the order of removal; and the Court below made a full return, embracing the particulars to which the affidavit related. The affidavit did not show that the Sessions had stated a special case, and for this cause,
    
      D. Robert
    
    now moved to quash the certiorari and return. He said the practice of submitting to this Court questions of law, arising upon evidence given at the Sessions, depended on their stating a case voluntarily; but this Court will not compel them to do it. The Sessions are an inferior jurisdiction, proceeding summarily, as to which the general rule is that they are not bound to send up any matter upon certiorari, except their process and record of judgment. Such is the rule in England as to the Quarter Sessions; and the statute, (1 R. L. 285, s. 18,) requiring the Court of Sessions in the city of New York to state a case, upon certiorari, strongly implies that no other Court of Sessions is bound to do this.
    To show when certiorari lies, and its nature and object, he cited 1 Ld. Raym. 469, 580 ; 1 Salk. .144; 2 Burr. 1042.
    
      And to show when the proceedings of summary jurisdictions may be reviewed on the merits, he cited Burr. Sett. Cas. 64, 77, 278, 454 ; 3 John. Rep. 23; 1 T. R. 755; 2 Burr. 1040.
   But the Court,

without hearing Mr. S. B. Strong, who was to have argued against the motion, said that the constant practice of this Court is, to require the Sessions to state the evidence and points of law in their return. And though this is denied in England, and rests upon the will of the Court below, as Mr. Robert had insisted; yet, in this state, if the Sessions should refuse to make such a return, this Court would compel them to do it, by a rule.

Motion denied with costsi

Savage, Ch. J. was absent. 
      
       Mr. Strong informed me that he relied for his practice, in this case, entirely on what the Court say in Sweet v. The Overseers of the Poor of the town of Clinton, (3 John. Rep. 23, 26.)
     