King against Burrell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 June 1840 |
| Date | 20 June 1840 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 886
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 4 P. & D. 207;L. J. Q. B. 337; 4 Jur. 1109.
[460] KlNH against bukrell. Saturday, June 20th, 1840. An overseer who neglects to sign the burgess list delivered by him under sect. 15 of 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76 (Municipal Corporation Act), incurs the penalty imposed by sect. 48, although his neglect was neither wilful nor corrupt. Tha delivery of a printed burgess list by an overseer, whose name is inserted in it as a burgess, and who has corrected the list in his own handwriting, is not a sufficient signature of it by him within sect. 15. In debt for the penalty under sect. 48, the declaration stated it to be the duty of defendant, as overseer, with the other overseers, to make out and sign an alphabetical list of burgesses; and averred that defendant unlawfully neglected and refused to make out .or sign such list. Held, on motion in arrest of judgment after verdict for plaintiff, that it was unnecessary to shew that the others did not sign such list; and that, if the signature of a majority was a signing by all, then, as tha verdict found that defendant had not signed, it must be presumed that the majority had not signed. Semble. All the overseers must sign the burgess list. Before the commencement of such action, no previous notice of action, under sect. 133, need be given by the plaintiff. Semble. Where a parish is divided by a local Act into nine wards, for each of which there is a separate rate and separate overseer appointed, who is also overseer for the whole parish, all the overseers must join in making out one burgess list for the whole parish. [S. C. 4 P. & D. 207; 9 L. J. Q. B. 337; 4 Jur. 1109.] Debt for the penalty of 501., upon stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, s. 48 (for the regulation of municipal corporations). The declaration stated, that defendant, before and at the time of the neglect and refusal thereinafter mentioned, to wit, on, &c, was one of the overseers of the poor of the parish of St. Margaret in the borough of King's Lynn in the county of Norfolk. That it was the duty of defendant, as such overseer of the poor of the said parish, and of the other overseers of the poor of the said parish, on the day and year aforesaid, to make out an alphabetical list of the burgesses in the said parish, that is to say, of all persons who should be entitled to be enrolled in the (a) See Marstm v. Allen, 8 M. & W. 494. 12 AD. E. 461. KING V. BUEBELL 887 burgess roll of the said borough for that year, according to the provisions of the statute in such case made and provided, in respect of property within the said parish ; and that defendant, as such overseer, ought to have signed such burgess list, and to have delivered the same so signed to the town clerk of the borough aforesaid ; yet defendant, not regarding his duty in that behalf, and not respecting the statute in such case made and provided, [461] unlawfully neglected and refused to make out and sign such burgess list for the year aforesaid; and did not then, or at any time before or since, make out and sign the same, contrary to the form, &c,, whereby, &c. Plea, not guilty. The cause was tried before Tindal C.J. at the Norfolk Lent Assizes, 1839, when it appeared that the parish consisted of nine wards, for each of which a separate overseer was appointed under the provisions of a local public Act passed 48 G. 3, and that the nine overseers were overseers of the poor of the whole parish. In each ward there is a separate rate, but the aggregate amount is indiscriminately applied to the relief of the whole parish. In September 1838, agreeably to the practice which had prevailed, with one exception, since the passing of the Act 5 & 6 W. 4, C. 76, each overseer made an alphabetical list for his own ward of persons entitled to be on the burgess list; and each (except the defendant) signed his own list, and delivered it to the town clerk of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.B. v Minister for Health
... ... The claimant appealed against his award on the 22nd April, 1999. The Minister for Health made a preliminary application arguing ... Commissioners for Public Works [1994] 1 I.R. 101, [1993] I.L.R.M. 665. King v. Burrell (1840) 12 Ad & El 460. In re MacManaway [1951] A.C. 161 ... ...
-
Monahan v Legal Aid Board
...I.L.R.M. 13. Keane v. An Bord Pleanála (No.2) [1997] 1 I.R. 184. King v. Burrell (1840) 12 Ad. & El. 460; 4 Per. & Dav. 207; 4 Jur. 1109; 113 E.R. 886; sub. nom. R. v. Burrell 9 L.J.Q.B. 337; 4 J.P. 556. In re MacManaway [1951] A.C. 161; 66 T.L.R. (Pt. 2) 808; 94 S.J. 687. Mulcahy v. Minist......
-
Howard v Commissioners of Public Works
...Co.(1877) 2 App. Cas. 394; 216 L.J.P.C. 71; 36 L.T. 265. King v. Burrell (1840) 12 Ad. & El. 460; 4 Per. & Dav. 207; 4 Jur. 1109; 113 E.R. 886; sub. nom.R. v. Burrell 9 L.J.Q.B. 337; 4 J.P. 556. The Lord Advocate v. Dumbarton D.C. [1990] 2 A.C. 580; [1989] 3 W.L.R. 1346; [1990] 1 All E.R. 1......
- MB