bigh Court of Justice. KING'S BENCH DIVISION. GREAT YARMOUTH UNION u. ST. MATTHEW, BETHNAL GREEN, GUARDIANS. Poor Law-Settlement and removal-Residential settlement-Residence - Railway guard sleeping alternate days in different places-Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), s. 34. A railway guard employed in travelling between London and Yarmouth had from 1871 to 1897 a residence in London and a lodging at Yarmouth, and used to sleep at the two places on alternate days. In 1897 he married the landlady of the house in which he lodged at Yarmouth and became the tenant of that house. He then gave up his house in London to his daughter and rented from her, as a lodger, a bedroom there at a weekly rent. He continued to sleep as before at the two places alternately. His wages were always paid to him in London; his residence was entered in the railway company's books as being in London after 1897 as before; and after 1897, as before, the company allowed him lodging money when he was at Yarmouth. Held, that as from 1897 his residence had been in Yarmouth and that he was consequently settled there. Case stated under section 11 of the Quarter Sessions Act, 1849, in an appeal against an order for the removal of one John Weald, a pauper, from the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, to the Great Yarmouth Union. 1-3. [These paragraphs stated that the order for the removal of the pauper Weald, which was made by a metropolitan police magistrate, contained a finding that the relief given to the pauper by the respondents, the Bethnal Green Guardians, was rendered necessary by the sickness of the pauper, which sickness the magistrate was satisfied would produce permanent disability. Otherwise the paragraphs were merely formal.] 4. The said John Weald was a night goods guard in the employment of the Great Eastern Railway Company for 27 years and upwards prior to July 21, 1905, when he met with an accident. The said John Weald from about 1871 and up to October, 1897, resided and occupied with his first wife 75, St. Peter Street, Hackney Road, and had a lodging at 15, Row 113, King Street, Great Yarmouth. 5. The said John Weald's first wife died in February, 1897, and on October 8, 1897, the said John Weald married Harriet Isabella Maud 1907. June 17. 1907. Great Yarmouth Boult, widow, who was then living at No. 15, Row 113, King Street, in the said parish of Great Yarmouth, which house she was occupying as tenant thereof, the furniture which was then in the said house and still continues therein being her own property. After her said marriage with the said John Weald, the said Harriet Isabella Maud Weald continued to reside at the said house so furnished as aforesaid, but the said John Weald became the tenant thereof and, except when absent in London as hereinafter stated, resided there with his wife, who still resides there. 6. After his second marriage the said John Weald ceased to be tenant of 75, St. Peter Street, Hackney Road, aforesaid, and gave the bulk of his furniture to his daughter Mrs. Warman, the remainder (being the contents of two rooms) he took to his house at Great Yarmouth, and which was used generally about the house. His daughter Mrs. Warman then became tenant of 75, St. Peter Street aforesaid, and he became her lodger, renting for an agreed weekly payment from her a furnished room, which he regularly occupied when in London. 7. The said John Weald's name was on the Parliamentary voters' list in Bethnal Green under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 3, until his second marriage, when it was removed therefrom, and in 1899 placed on the Parliamentary lists of voters for the Borough of Great Yarmouth under 48 & 49 Vict. c. 3, s. 5, where it still remains. 8. The said John Weald, being night goods guard, used to arrive in Great Yarmouth at 6.5 a.m., and was due out the same day at 4.10 p.m., that train being due in London at 1.55 a.m. The rest of that night and the following day until 11.18 p.m. he remained in London at No. 75, St. Peter Street, leaving for Great Yarmouth at the latter hour. He slept at No. 75, St. Peter Street, and at No. 15, Row 113, King Street, Yarmouth, on alternate days. His wages were paid to him at the London office of the Great Eastern Railway. Upon the said John Weald entering the service of the Great Eastern Railway Company, his name and address, at 75, St. Peter Street, Bethnal Green, were entered on a list kept by the Company of the names and residences of their employees. The address of the said John Weald remained unaltered during the whole time that the said John Weald was in the Company's service, and the Company paid to him lodging money whenever he resided at Great Yarmouth, it being customary for the Company to pay lodging money to any guard in their employment remaining for rest at the place of destination to which he goes in the course of his employThe said John Weald was allowed off duty during one Saturday night in every month, and this night he spent in Bethnal Green, but he was also allowed off duty during two consecutive nights once in every ment. month, and this he spent, after his second marriage, with his wife at Great Yarmouth. 1907. Great Yarmouth 9. On July 21, 1905, the said John Weald met with an accident whilst Union v. St. Matthew, on duty just commencing his outward journey. He managed to com- Bethnal Green, plete his journey, but was too unwell to do his work the next night. He Guardians. saw the accident doctor at the Liverpool Street Station of the Great Eastern Railway Company in London two or three times (a return pass being given to him each time) before September 7, 1905, in accordance with the regulations of the Great Eastern Railway Company. On the last-named day the said John Weald, being provided with a return pass, came to London and saw the Company's accident doctor. After seeing him, being too exhausted to return to Great Yarmouth, he gave back to the Company the return part of his pass and went to his lodging in Bethnal Green. 10. On October 11, 1905, the said John Weald endeavoured to obtain admission to the London Hospital, but it was not until November 19, 1905, that a bed became vacant. On that day he became an inmate of the Hospital, and remained therein until February 21, 1906. On February 21, 1906, the said John Weald was discharged from the Hospital and returned to No. 75. St. Peter Street, Bethnal Green, where he remained until March 3, 1906, when he was admitted to the respondents' infirmary upon the application of his daughter, the said Mrs. Warman. Seven days after his admission the medical superintendent of the infirmary certified with respect to the said John Weald as follows: "I hereby certify that I have examined John Weald, aged 63, of Bethnal Green Infirmary, who is suffering from paralysis; probable duration of illness-permanent. (Signed) D. G. POTTS, Medical Superintendent." This certificate was not produced to the magistrate when an application was made for an order for his removal, though it was in court ready for production if needed, nor did the said medical superintendent give evidence on that occasion. 11. The appellants contend (a) That there was no evidence before the magistrate empowering him to decide that the illness of the said John Weald was likely to be of a permanent nature, and that therefore the said order is bad. (b) That even supposing the order to be good, the pauper is not settled in the said parish of Great Yarmouth, inasmuch as he had no such residence in the said parish as would render him irremovable therefrom. (c) That the settlement of the said John Weald is such settlement as 1907. Great Yarmouth he had obtained prior to his said marriage with his second wife, which settlement was in the respondents' parish. 12. The respondents contend (a) That the learned magistrate decided that the sickness of the said John Weald would produce permanent disability, and that his decision is final and cannot be reviewed. (b) That upon the facts the learned magistrate rightly decided that the sickness of the said John Weald would produce permanent disability. (c) That after his second marriage in 1897 the said John Weald ceased to reside in the parish of Bethnal Green, and resided at No. 15, Row 113, King Street, in the parish of Great Yarmouth, and by his residence acquired a settlement in such last-mentioned parish, to which he is removable. 13. The questions for the opinion of the Court are whether the said order of removal is good, and if so whether upon the facts above stated the said John Weald is settled in the said parish of Great Yarmouth. RAWLINSON, K.C. (W. A. CASSON with him), for the appellants. It is submitted that the pauper never resided in Yarmouth within the meaning of section 34 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876. He always spent two-thirds of his time elsewhere: Reg. v. Norwood Union (1867) L. R. 2 Q. B. 457 ; 36 L. J. M. C. 91; Merthyr Tydfil Union v. Stepney Union (1884) 53 L. J. M. C. 183. It is not necessary to contend that the pauper continued to reside in London after his second marriage; the true view would rather be that after that time he had no residence. Secondly, it is submitted that there was no evidence on which the magistrate could find that the disability caused by the pauper's illness would be permanent, as it was necessary that he should find under section 4 of the Poor Removal Act, 1846. [He also referred to Biggleswade Union v. Marylebone Union (1882) 46 J. P. 472.] W. L. L. BELL (MACMORRAN, K.C., with him), for the respondents, was not called upon. LORD ALVERSTONE C.J. I do not think the point that there was no evidence before the magistrate entitling him to decide that the illness of the pauper was likely to produce permanent disability is one that ought to have been raised. The magistrate purported to act on the information before him, and the medical officer was there to be called. I think we ought to give no effect to this point. 1907. The other point, as to the pauper's residence, when he was always travelling backwards and forwards, is of more importance. When the Great Yarmouth facts are understood, however, I have little doubt as to what our decision Union v. St. Matthew, should be. Indeed, to my mind, the question does not admit of much Bethnal Green, argument. The pauper was a railway guard of goods trains, and Guardians. travelled backwards and forwards at night between Great Yarmouth and London, and, except when away in London, he resided with his second wife in a house of which he became tenant, and of which he was rated as occupier, but when in London he regularly occupied as a lodger a furnished room which he rented from his daughter at a weekly rent. He slept at Great Yarmouth and in London on alternate days. There is a finding in the case that he was always entered in the Railway Company's books as residing in London, but although that is a fact that may be taken into consideration, yet upon the rest of the facts I have come to the conclusion that Yarmouth was his true place of residence. I am therefore of opinion that the order was properly made, and that our judgment must be in favour of the Guardians of the Bethnal Green Union. Accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. DARLING J. I am of the same opinion. The case as stated is exceedingly strong to show that the pauper had taken up his permanent residence at Great Yarmouth. He became tenant of a house there, having previously given up his residence in Bethnal Green to his daughter, and becoming tenant to her of a furnished bedroom at a weekly rent. I think this is strong evidence of an intention on his part to have a permanent residence at Great Yarmouth. A. T. LAWRENCE J. I agree. Appeal dismissed. Solicitors for the appellants-Callard and Vulliamy, for F. Burton, Great Yarmouth. Solicitor for the respondents-G. A. Double. Reported by Gilbert Metcalfe, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. |