Newbould v Coltman and Another

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date11 January 1851
Date11 January 1851
CourtExchequer

English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 508

IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER

Newbould
and
Coltman and Another

S C 20 L J M C 149

[189] newbotjlb v coltman and another Jan 11, 1851-The Pooi Law Commiasioners in 1837, by an order, directed nine parishes, townships, and places, to be formed into a Union, to be called the Pateley Bridge Union, for the administration of the law foi the relief of the poor-In the margin of the order were enumerated eleven townships fiist, Bewerley , second, Dacre, &c , and the Commissioner's ordered that a board should be constituted according to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, fourteen to be the number of j guardians, three for Bewerley, two for Dacre, &c, treating them as separate 1 townships They then directed them to contribute to a common fund, foi the ' purpose of ptovidmg a workhouse, &c, and aftei wards fixed the proportions payable by each township or place In 1848, the chauman and guardians of the union made an order on the plaintiff and three others, as overseers of the paush of Dacre-cum-Bewerley (treating the two as one township) for payment of 5001 by way of contribution towaids the relief of the poor, &c This order having been disobeyed, the defendants, who were magistrates, issued then summons to the plaintiff and the other overseers, as overseeis of Dacre-curn-Bowerley, and afterwards issued a waitant of distress, under which the plaintiff's goods were taken In arr action of trespass against the defendants foi a seizure of the plaintiffs goods under this warrant -Held, fiist, that the 2 & i Viet c 84, a [, gave to the 6jEX 190 NKWBOULD 0 OOi/TMAN 509 magistrates a povvei similar to that exercised by them 111 enforenig a legal poor-iate , but that, in the absence of a legal obligation to pay the contiibution by the paity whose goods had been seized, the magistrates had acted without jurisdiction, and were liable -Secondly, that, if they acted undoi such chcuinstances, they were liable ib an action of trespass, and that the 11 & 12 Viet c 44, which, in certain cases, makes a magistrate liable in an action on the ca.se only, did not apply , and -Thirdly, (dubitante Aldeison, B ), that, although the ordei of the Commissioners would have been wrong in ordeiing thiee guauharis to be elected for Beweiley, and two for Dacre, instead of five foi the entne township, if those places constituted one township, still that the defects in the order wete cuted by the i & 5 Will 4, c 70, s 105, and the order was valid ad intenm , and that the acts of the guardians were valid [S. C 20 L J M C 149 ] Trespass for breaking and entering the dwelling-house, &c , of the plamtift, and foi seizing his goods Plea, not guilty " by statute " Issue thereon At the ttial, befoie Alderson, B , at the Yoik Spring Assizes, 1850, the facts of the 0,136 (which were stated in the judgment of the Court) weie as follows -It was an Action of trespass against the defendants, two magistrates of the West liiding of the (iounty of Yoik, foi causing to be seized and sold the plamtift s goods undei a warrant of distiess, signed by the defendants on the 14th of February, 1849, against the goods of the overseers of the poor of the township of Dacre oum-Bewetley, foi the nonpayment Of the sum of 5001 ordered by the chairman and two guardians of the Pateley Bridge Union to be paid by the overseers of the township of Dacre-cum-Beweiley, at a meeting qf the guardians of the poor of the said Union, on the 10th of December, 1848, from dhe pool-rates of the said township of Dacre-cum-Bewerley, towards the relief of the poor thereof, the contribution of the township to the common fund of the Union, and such other expenses [190] as were by the guardians chargeable rn the same township. This order was not obeyed The plamtitt was an oveiseer appointed for the sard town-ahip. The order havriig been drsobeyed, two magistrates, the defendant Mr Coltman being one, issued their summons on the 10th of January, 1849, grounded on an information and complaint rn wrrtrng of the chairman of the board of the Unron, stating the order and the nonpayment, and calling on the plarntrrl and the other overseeis to appear at a specral sessions at Knaresborough, on the J4th of January, to answer the mfor matron, and to be dealt with according to law The case was adjourned, and after the hearing before the two defendants, on the 14th of February, 1849, the defendants issued their warrant of distress The plarntiff, on the trial, proved the ongrnal order of the Poor Law Commrssioneis, under their hands and seals, on the J8th of January, 1837, whereby the Pateley Brrdge Union was formed The Commissioners thereby declare that the townships and places, the names of which are specified in the margin of the order, together wrth all hamlets, tithings, liberties, Or other subdrvisions lying within or belonging 01 adjacent to any of them, shall be pnited foi the administration of the laws for the relrei of the poor, by the name of the Jateley Bridge Union, and should contribute, in the proportion thereafter to be i Bcertairied, to the annual average expenditure of the Unron In the margrn were ((numerated eleven tovvrrshrps 1, Bewerley, 2, Dacre, 3, Menwrth wrth Darley, &c , iind the Commissioners ordered that a board should be constituted accoidmg to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, font teen to be the number ot the jjuarduns, three for Beweiley, two each for Dacre and Menwith with Darley, and one : or each of the rest (a) There were always afterwards elected-tor [191] Bewerley ,hree, for Daere two, as if they had been separate townships On the 7th of Decenabei, .841, the Comnirs-[192]-sioners, puisuant to the 4 & 5 Will 4, c 76, ascertained the expense inouried by each township forming part of the Pateley Bridge Union, and fixed the average ot Beweiley at 4261, and Dacre at 2971, treatrng them as separate townships, and the others at other sums (a) Th& following is a copy of the order of the Poor Law Commissioners -" In pursuance of an Act of Parliament passed m the 4th and 5th years of the leign of his present Majesty King Wrlham the Fourth, rntrtuled 'An Act foi the Amendment and petter Adrmriistiation of the Laws relating to the Pool in England and Wales,' wo, the I?oor Law Commissioners for England and Wales, do hereby order arid declare that the 510 NEWBOULD v COLTMAN 6 EX 193 Oti the pait of the plaintiff it was contended, that tbe oidet of the chairman and guarilrans of the poor was a nullity , for that, inasmuch as the older of the Comniis-slonefs declared the two places to be sepaiate townships, it was conclusive against all persons acting undei it until moved by ceitioian and quashed, and that the places could] not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • The Queen against Greene and Others, Overseers of the Poor of Gateshead, Durham
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 21 January 1852
    ...that they carried it into effect. The protection would not apply if they ordered that a man should be beheaded.] Newbmdd v. Goltman (6 Exch. 189), illustrates the distinction. [Coleridge J. Sect. 105 says only that, until removed and quashed on certiorari, the order shall be obeyed and enfo......
  • R (O'Ferrall) v Sheehan
    • Ireland
    • Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 17 February 1898
    ...26 L. R. Ir. 625. (1) 26 L. R. Ir. 619. (1) 2 A. & E. 216. (2) 4 App. Cas. 30. (3) 11 A. & E. 558. (4) 2 Q. B. 308. (5) 5 Q. B. 878. (6) 6 Exch. 189. (7) 17 Q. B. (8) 41 L. J., Q. B. 174. (9) 6 Q. B. D. p. 135. (10) 10 A. & E. 281. (1) 6 Ell. & Bl. 411. (2) 13 Q. B. 327. (3) 18 Q. B. 682. (......
  • M'Donald v Bulwer
    • Ireland
    • Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)
    • 21 November 1862
    ...B. 247. Brittain v. KinnairdENR 1 Brod. & Bing. 432. In re Clarke 2 Q. B. 619. Grady v. Hunt 1 Ir. Jur., N. S., 10. Newboult v. ColtmanENR 6 Ex. 189. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 549 M. T. 1862. Common Pleas M'DONALD v. BUMPER. (Common Pleas). Nov. 5, 6, 21. Tars was an action of assault and false i......
  • Pedley v Davis and Shipston
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Common Pleas
    • 8 June 1861
    ...jurisdiction. The local act gives him none* This matter was discussed since Jarvis's Act in the court of Exchequer in Nmabauld v. Coltman, 6 Exch. 189. The poor law commissioners in 1837, by an order, directed nine parishes, townships, and places to be formed into a union to be called the P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT