Page images
PDF
EPUB

movable unless her husband, if chargeable, would have been irre

movable.

The proviso at the end of the 9 & 10

Vict. c. 66, s. 1, applies only to those persons who are within

the enacting part of the same sec tion.

an order made

the passing of the

question submitted to the consideration of the court was whether the pauper had become irremovable as she had resided in the respondent parish for five years next before the application for the order. The pauper was the wife of a man who in 1846 was committed to a prison situate out of the parish on a charge for which he was at the summer assizes of the same year sentenced to be transported. She had resided with her husband until that commitment, and at that time the five years' residence was not complete. If the husband be supposed to have returned to his wife and an order to have been applied for to remove him, he would not have been irremovable by reason of the five years, because an imprisonment in another parish on a criminal charge ending in a conviction and a long imprisonment or transportation is a break in the residence (Reg. v. Salford.) The effect of the proviso in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, whether we look to the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 111 or not, appears to us to show the wife is irremovable, if, under the circumstances, the husband having become chargeable, would have been so. The rule therefore will be absolute for quashing the order of sessions." (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Pott Shrigley, 3 New Sess. Cas. 317; 3 New Mag. Cas. 64.)

In the case of Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Ebbs, Oxford, New Sess. Cas. 308; 18 L. J. 14, M. C. ; 3 New Mag. Cas. 62, it was held that as the proviso at the end of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, applies only to those persons who are within the enacting part of the same section, that where a man and his wife and children had come into a parish at midsummer, 1846, and the husband deserted them in March, 1847, and they were removed to his settlement by an order dated 29th April, 1847, they were removable.

Irremovability The 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 2, enacts, that " no woman residing in any forms a ground parish with her husband at the time of his death shall be removed, nor of appeal against shall any warrant be granted for her removal from such parish for twelve before, but not calendar months next after his death if she continue a widow." The act executed till after came into operation 26th August, 1846. Held, that though an order for 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. the removal of a pauper widow made before the passing of the act was a valid order, yet the act rendered the pauper irremovable under it, and the pauper having been removed under it after the passing of the act that such irremovability was a good ground of appeal against the order. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Mary, Whitechapel, 3 New Sess. Cas. 262; 17 L. J. 172, M. C.; 3 New Mag. Cas. 8.)

Overseers and Parish Officers.

Election of guarStat. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, ss, 40, 46, 105, and 109.]-The Poor Law dians-appoint- Commissioners made an order directing the overseers of the poor of the ment of returning officer-order of several parishes of a union to assemble for the purpose of appointing a commissioners. returning officer to act at the election of guardians for such union. That

recovery.

order not having been removed into this court by certiorari, the court, after argument upon demurrer, issued a peremptory mandamus to enforce it, upon the ground that the order related to a matter within the jurisdiction of the commissioners, and (Coleridge, J., dubitante) that its validity could only be questioned upon removal into this court by certiorari. (Reg. v. The Overseers of the Poor of the Oldham Union, 2 New Mag. Cas. 207; 16 L. J. 110, M. C.)

Parish propertyBuildings and lands were conveyed by B. and G. to N. and R. in fee, who to sue for the to the use of B. C.; N. and R. in fee "upon trust to receive and take or otherwise permit and suffer the churchwardens" of a parish "for the time being, yearly for ever to receive and take the rents, issues, profits, and annual payment and proceeds," as the same shall arise or become payable, for or towards the repair of the parish church "and for the benefit

[ocr errors]

of the said parish, so and in such manner as the same had theretofore been usually or lawfully applied and disposed of, and according to the intentions of the several charitable persons who gave or devised the said premises respectively: they, the said churchwardens yearly at Easter accounting to the parishioners" "in vestry assembled, for the same.' Among the parcels conveyed were four cottages, described in the conveyance as situate in the parish "wherein poor families were permitted to dwell rent free." Held, that the property vested, under stat. 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 17, in the parish officers, and that they were the proper parties to sue for use and occupation of the premises conveyed, and that such action could not be maintained by the trustees. (Rumball v. Munt, 8 Q. B. 382; but see next case.)

In 1749, land was conveyed by deed to trustees upon trust to permit Same. the churchwardens and overseers for the time being of a parish to receive the rents, &c., to and for the use and benefit of the poor of that parish; and the deed gave the trustees for the time being power to lease for twenty-one years. Held, that although the trusts were general, still the legal estate was not vested in the parish officers by stat. 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 17, because there were known existing trustees under the deed, and the provisions of the statute were insufficient to divest their estate. (Churchwardens of St. Nicholas, Deptford v. Sketchley, 8 Q. B. 394; 12 Jur. 38; 17 L. J. 17, M. C.; 2 New Mag. Cas. 336; 10 L. T. 285.)

Evidence.]-A churchwarden may be compelled to give evidence before Evidence of justices or at quarter sessions touching the settlement of a pauper alleged parish officers on to be settled in the parish of which he is churchwarden.

A Crown-office subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness before two justices in support of an application for an order for the removal of a pauper may issue before any complaint has actually been made by the churchwardens or overseers of the pauper's chargeability. (Reg. v. Vickery, 11 L. T. 221, Q. B.; 3 New Sess. Cas. 193.)

an order of removal.

The guardians of a poor law union cannot bind themselves by an order, Power of guarnot under seal, for making a survey and map (according to stat. 6 & 7 dians to contract. Will. 4, c. 96, s. 3), of the rateable property in a parish forming part of the union; for such order is not a contract necessarily incident to the purposes for which the guardians are made a corporation by stats. 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 69, s. 76; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 57, s. 16, and it is not intended by stat. 6 & 7 Will 4, c. 96, s. 3, that the guardians of a union should make themselves liable for the expenses of such plan. Nor can such guardians bind themselves by a contract without seal (if they can in any manner contract), to remunerate a surveyor for attending as a witness on appeal against a parochial assessment within the union. (Paine v. Guardians of the Strand Union, 8 Q. B. 326.)

By the 54 Geo. 3, c. 113 (local), s. 3, certain vacancies in the governors Election under and guardians of the poor of St. Mary's, Newington, Surrey, are to be local act. filled up at Easter, "when it shall be lawful for the said governors and guardians to call a vestry meeting of the inhabitants of the said parish on Easter Tuesday in every year, at which said vestry meeting all the vacancies in the list of governors and guardians shall be filled up by poll or ballot, or in way such of election as shall be deemed most proper and convenient." Held, first, that it is for the vestry assembled on the day named to determine by what method, whether by poll, ballot, or other proper mode, the vacancies shall be filled up: secondly, that if properly demanded, a poll of the whole parish should be taken, and that the election is not in such a case to be confined to the parishioners actually present; thirdly, that the governors and guardians are the proper parties to call the vestry together. (Reg. v. The Guardians of St. Mary, Newington, 2 Bail Ct. Rep. 303. 11 L. T. 205, Q. B.)

Where an attorney was retained by two churchwardens and two over- Liability to seers to prosecute an appeal, before the proceedings terminated the two attorney's bill. overseers went out of office, but the two new overseers and the church

wardens (who had been re-elected) from time to time gave instructions in the matter to the attorney, they do not thereby render themselves personally liable for the expenses. It appeared that one of the churchwardens, who had signed the retainer, afterwards countermanded his consent. Held, that he was not bound by the acts of the others, and that the rule that in parochial matters the acts of the majority bind the minority, did not apply, so as to make him personally liable. (Marsh v. Davies, 10 L. T. 330; 17 L. J. 94, Ex.)

sessions against a poor-rate suf

Poor Rate.

Service of notice IN order to entitle a person to be heard before justices at special sessions of appeal to petty under the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96, s. 6 (Parochial Assessment Act), against a rate made for the relief of the poor, it is only necessary to prove service of notice of objection on one of the overseers or other persons by whom such rate was made. (Reg. v. The Justices of Devon, 3 New Sess. Cas. 96.)

ficient upon one

overseer.

Rateability of buildings occu

and literary societies. The Birmingham

News Room.

barrister unap

not conclusive

of exemption.

By stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 63 (An Act to exempt from Rateability Land and pied by scientific Buildings occupied by Scientific or Literary Societies), the purposes of the society, the contributions, the absence of profits, the law of such society against dividends, and the certificate, are conditions in equal degree to the right of exemption, and the claim of right may be defeated on the default of any one of the conditions, and the presence of one raises no Certificate of the presumption against the absence of any or either of the others. The pealed against is Birmingham News Room Society obtained the certificate of a barrister, as specified in the first section, stating that certain premises in the occuproof of the right pation of the said society were not liable to be rated to the relief of the poor of Birmingham. There was no appeal against the certificate under the sixth section. It appeared the total receipts of the society were exhausted by the expenses of the establishment, but no law of the society existed prohibiting any division of profits among its members. Held, that such prohibitory law was necessary to enable the society to establish their claim of exemption, and that the certificate was only a condition precedent to the claim of exemption, and not conclusive proof of the right. Mr. Justice Coleridge, in delivering the judgment of the court, said, “At the time of the argument of this case, the court intimated its opinion that upon the facts, without the certificate, the society did not appear to them to be instituted for the purpose of science or literature exclusively, nor to be supported in part by annual voluntary contributions, nor to be a society that might not by its laws make any dividend or profit. The case for the society was then arrested on the effect of the certificate of the barrister, which was contended to be conclusive, either as the decision of a tribunal or commissioner having jurisdiction over the question, or as a decision made conclusive by the statute; but in examining the statute, the certificate appears to us to be made a condition precedent to claim the exemption, but not a conclusive proof of the right. The first section exempts from rateability persons occupying a building for the purpose of science, literature, or the fine arts exclusively, provided it shall be supported wholly or in part by annual voluntary contributions, and shall not, and by its laws may not, make dividends between its members, and provided such society shall obtain the certificate of a barrister. The purpose of the society, the contributions, the absence of profits, the law against dividends, and the certificate, are conditions in equal degree to the right of exemption. Under this section, the claim of right of exemption may be defeated on the default of any one of these conditions, and the presence of one raises no presumption against the absence of any or either of the others. As the making a dividend at any time would defeat the right of exemption which had existed, it is absurd to suppose that a past certificate could be treated as conclusive proof

that a future dividend should not exist; nor is the certificate rendered conclusive by the sixth section, which gives an appeal from the decision of the barrister granting it, to any person assessed to the rate, and giving notice of the grounds of appeal, and empowers the court to annul the certificate, and makes the determination of the court upon those points binding and conclusive upon all parties, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. In the first place, there has been no appeal against this certificate, and the section does not apply. Moreover, in the case of appeal, the inquiry is confined to the ground stated in the notice of appeal, and the decision is confined to the annulling or not on those grounds. If it is annulled, that is conclusive; if not, the certificate remains as valid as before the appeal. The ill consequences of holding that a certificate, which has not been annulled on an appeal, when one ground of objection only has been taken by an appellant, should therefore be conclusive proof of the right of exemption for all time and against all persons, and, notwithstanding other objections, make it improbable that Parliament intended to give it that effect. The words do not express such an intention, and the determination by the sessions that a certificate shall not be annulled on account of the alleged objections, may be conclusive as to them, and the certificate may fulfil the conditions required, so far as they are declared untouched by the grounds of appeal, without having the effect of either fulfilling the other conditions or being conclusive in respect of them. The fifth section of the act gives an analogous appeal in case of refusal of a certificate by the barrister, and makes the final filing of the rules of the society, by order of the court of quarter sessions, to have the same effect as if the barrister had certified. That is the effect that a certificate has, if it is not annulled on appeal under sect. 6, but no conclusive effect is given to such judgment on appeal. Therefore, we are of opinion that the claim of exemption is not sustained by the certificate, nor by the other facts of the case, and it follows the verdict should be for the crown on all the issues." (Reg. v. Phillips, 3 New Sess. Cas. 134; 17 L. J. 83, M. C.)

66

Inclosure Act.

Under a private inclosure act, (25 Geo. 2), certain lands which were to Non-rateability be inclosed, were to be charged with the payment of the yearly sum by virtue of an of 90l. to the rector, and the same was to be paid and contributed free and clear of and from all deductions, defalcations, or abatements, for or in respect of reprises or outgoings whatsoever other than and except the land-tax," and the same was to be "in lieu and satisfaction of and in full compensation for all tithes arising out of the said lands." Held, that the rector was not rateable to the relief of the poor in respect of such yearly sum. (Reg. v. Shaw, 3 New Sess. Cas. 170; 3 New Mag. Cas. 33.)

rates may issue

in common.

A distress warrant may issue against any one of a number of tenants, A distress warin common, refusing to pay the amount of a rate assessed on all of them. rant for poor(Paynter v. The Queen, 16 L. J. 385, Q. B.; 11 Jur. 973.) In the above against any one case it was also decided that in a notice of allowance of a rate, it is not of several tenants necessary to show how the rate was allowed. Therefore it was not held necessary, where it appeared that the rate was allowed by a police magistrate, to allege that he had made the allowance at a police court. Also, that a rate is not invalid under the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 96, s. 2, for not following in precise words the prescribed form, if it is duly signed by the churchwardens and overseers before it is allowed.

By the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 85, entitled "An Act to continue to the first Day of October, 1849, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament, the Exemption of Inhabitants from Liability to be rated as such in respect of Stock in Trade or other Property, to the Relief of the Poor," such exemption was accordingly continued.

Removal (see " Order of Removal," ante, p. 149.)

Exemption of

stock in trade from rateability.

Allowance of parish inden

tures.

Binding by
a majority of
parish officers.
Validity of
allowance.

Sessions.

THE recent statute of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, confers great powers upon the sessions to amend grounds of removal and appeal, and otherwise to deal with appeals. (See the statute, ante, p. 142.)

Settlement (Apprenticeship.)

IF upon the binding of a parish apprentice, the binding parish is situate in one jurisdiction of the peace, and the parish in which the apprentice is to serve is situate in another jurisdiction, the allowance of the indenture by two justices of the latter jurisdiction, under the 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, s. 2, is a judicial act, and must appear upon the face of the instrument to have been done within the local limits of their jurisdiction. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Totnes, 3 New Mag. Cas. 79.)

Where a township has two overseers and one churchwarden, a binding of an apprentice by the churchwarden and one overseer is valid under the 54 Geo. 3, c. 107, s. 1. It was further held that the allowance was valid without stating the justices to have been acting "in" the riding, inasmuch as the approval of the binding being an act personal to the justices who make an order for it, the place where the allowance is signed is not material. (Reg. v. The Inhabitants of Stainforth, 3 New Sess. Cas. 53; 17 L. J. 25, M. C.)

Settlement-Renting a Tenement (see Reg. v. The Inhabitants of St. Pancras," ante, "Examinations.")

Statement of Grounds of Removal (see "Order of Removal," ante.)

Subpæna.

A witness attend- ON an application to justices at petty sessions for an order of removal, a ing upon a sub- witness attending there in obedience to a crown-office subpœna cannot pœna to give evidence before a refuse to give evidence as to the pauper's settlement on the ground of justice upon an his being either a rated inhabitant or officer of the parish on which the cannot refuse to order is sought to be made. Affidavits used in moving for an attachgive evidence on ment for refusing to give such evidence did not state that one of the the ground of his being a rated in- justices at petty sessions before whom the witness was subpoenaed was of Held, sufficient. (Reg. v. Vickery, 3 New Sess. Cas. 193,

order of removal

habitant or a

the quorum.

parish officer of 17 L. J. 129, M.C.; 3 New Mag. Cas. 23.)

the parish on

which the order

is to be made.

c. 91.

Payment of Parish Debts and Audit of Accounts.

11 & 12 VICT. BY the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 91, intituled "An Act to make Provision for the Payment of Parish Debts and Audit of Parochial and Union Accounts and the Allowance of certain Charges therein" (passed 31st August, 1848), after reciting that it is expedient to make some provisions as to the payment in certain cases of debts incurred by the overseers of the poor in parishes

« EelmineJätka »