case the parish OF RICELIP against the parish OF henden a order of removal  discharge on appeal be only conclusive as against the appellant parish but a  order of removal affirm be conclusive as against all parish with respect to  settlement gain anterior to the order of removal S c bar king b S c ld ray S c  salk S c Sett Rem S c salk S c holt S c Bott S c fort it be move to quash a  order of session which be make for the removal of a poor fellow from the  parish of Ricelip to the parish of henden they set forth a order of two  justice of peace by which he be remove first of all from harrow to henden upon  appeal to the session he be send back again to harrow then harrow send he to  Ricelip who appeal and the order be affirm then Ricelip send he to henden and  henden appeal and that appeal be disallow and upon this appeal he be settle at  Ricelip modern er p the order by which he be send from Ricelip to henden be  not good the statute of car c give a authority to send poor person to the  place of their last legal settlement and therefore the justice at their  session have once settle this person at Ricelip and so execute their authority  he be not to be remove again sir b shower I hope this order shall be quash for  it be at henden that he be legal settle where he have four pound ayear  freehold he be never legal settle at Ricelip modern we say that Ricelip be not  conclude for that we be never before hear for a appeal be only final and  conclusive between the party but shall a combination between two parish  conclude another parish because henden have prevail against harrow by consent  perhaps that shall not conclude Ricelip which be a three parish and a stranger  to the appeal between henden and harrow e contra if Ricelip can have show that  he have a legal settlement elsewhere it will be something sir b shower our  case be this the parish of Ricelip remove he to henden then henden appeal and  that appeal be disallow but it appear upon the face of the order that he be  legal settle at henden that order ought not to have be likewise quash e contra  the first order be from harrow to Ricelip and that order be adjudge good upon  a appeal by harrow then Ricelip send he to henden which we say they can do for  that they be conclude holt chief justice where the justice of peace give a  special reason for their settlement and the conclusion which they make in  point of law will not warrant the premise there we will rectify their  judgement but if they have give no reason at all then we will not have travel  into the fact but here it appear that he have a freehold at henden which  descend to he now if this man go and live there forty day shall he be disturb  No certain and though they adjudge this not to be a settlement yet we  determine it otherwise accord to law but it be say that the justice have  adjudge the matter upon a appeal between Ricelip and henden and that this be  conclusive Turton justice No since it appear that this order be good upon the  special matter shower this matter come here upon the whole for the opinion of  the court modern holt chief justice but suppose he have sell his estate at  henden why then his settlement cease there and perhaps he may have acquire  another elsewhere and therefore Ricelip may well be conclude for this may be  the place of his last legal settlement and then this parish must maintain he  till they find out another parish where he be last legal settle the question  here be what be the last place at which he be legal settle Turton justice if  it appear that they have adjudge a legal settlement which be not so we may  quash that order where the special matter appear upon the order holt chief  justice that be true Rokeby justice I think this difference have only be  whether the board have be a legal settlement or his have a freehold the one be  at Ricelip and the other at henden and if so I shall be of opinion that the  settlement be at henden Turton justice here seem to be res inter elsewhere  acta c for Ricelip and henden be not concern before holt chief justice but  Ricelip be no three person for Ricelip be concern Turton justice it plain  appear now that henden be the place where he be legal settle and why shall not  Ricelip send he thither holt chief justice this fellow shall at this rate be  send up and down from parish to parish and so make a vagrant by the justice of  the peace order indeed the meaning here be to have the judgement of the court  upon the whole where this man be legal settle and the design of this order be  to lie all matter before we shower we say that this man be not settle at  Ricelip for that he have a freehold at henden modern er p holt chief justice  but the adjudication of the justice of the peace be that he be settle at  Ricelip and we can falsify their modern judgement though it be illegal we can  correct they in fact of which they be sole judge shower two justice of peace  can send a man over to any other place than his last legal settlement before a  appeal and why shall they have power to send he over after a appeal holt chief  justice let a man be settle where he will we be all of opinion that a man may  go and live where he have a estate and therefore that he may have go to the  place where he have a freehold Adjournatur this case be again debate in the  Hilary term follow when holt chief justice and gold justice be of opinion that  Ricelip by the confirmation of the order remove he from harrow to Ricelip be  now conclude against all person and place from contest that Ricelip be not the  place of his last legal settlement S c salk Turton justice be of opinion that  it shall be conclusive against harrow but not against henden Rokeby justice be  of opinion that the appeal to the session be not final in any case but that it  may be remove into the king bench and examine there upon its merit S c ld ray  and on account of this difference of opinion no judgement be give but it seem  that a order of removal affirm be conclusive on the appellant parish not only  as to the parish remove but as to all other parish with respect to settlement  anterior to the order of removal king v Stoney Stratford salk but not as to  settlement subsequent gain king v Shenfield salk king v Filingtowe bott p l pl  but a order reverse be only conclusive as between the contend parish bedington  v Kingston Bowsey salk Carth Cirencester v Coln saint Aldwins burr S c king v  Bradenham burr S c king v Bentley burr S c king v leigh call a