R v Birmingham Overseers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1861 |
| Date | 16 November 1861 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 897
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 31 L. J. M. C. 63; 5 L. T. 309; 8 Jur. N. S. 37; 10 W. R. 41. Applied, R. v. Exeter Governors, 1869, L. R. 4. Q. B. 344.
[763] the quien against the churchwardens, overseers and guardians l^22 J OF THE poor OF the parish of birmingham. Saturday, November 16th, 1861.-Evidence. Hearsay. Declaration of deceased person.-On an appeal against an order of removal of a female pauper, it was shewn that the father of the pauper's husband had occupied and paid rent for a tenement in the appellant parish. In order to prove the amount of tbat rent, the respondents' counsel offered to shew that, whilst in occupation of that tenement, the father said to his son that he occupied the same as tenant at an annual rent of 201.: held, that the evidence was admissible. [S. C. 31 L. J. M. C. 63; 5 L. T. 309; 8 Jur. N. S. 37; 10 W. R. 41. Applied, R. v. Exeter Governors, 1869, L. E. 4 Q. B. 344.] Two, justices of the peace for the borough of Birmingham made an order, dated (a) The learned Judge probably refers to Moon v. Durden, 2 Exch. 22, 42, where Parke B. cites the maxim in question. K. B. L.-29 898 THE QUEEN V. THE OVERSEERS OF BIRMINGHAM I B. fc t. 764. 9th Augustj 1860, for the removal of Sarah, wife of William Day, absent from her, and their four children, from the parish of Birmingham to the parish of Kingswood, in the county of Gloucester; against this order the parish of Kingawood appealed to the Quarter Sessions for the borough of Birmingham, which quashed the order, subject to the: following case. The respondents proved that John Lockyer Day, deceased, father of William ;Day, occupied a tenement from the year 1829 until his death in 1847, in the parish of Kiugiwood, and the rent for which was settled in account with the landlords, and was found by the Court to have been paid by John Lockyer Day. To prove the amount of tbat rent, evidence was tendered by the respondents and objected to by the appellants' counsel, that John Lockyer Day, whilst in occupation of that tenement, said to hia son Thomas Day that he, John Lockyer Day, occupied the same as tenant at a rent of 201. per year, It this Court should be of opinion that the evidence of the declaration of John Lockyer Day was admissible [764] for the purpose of proving the amount of the rent, and the nature of the occupation, then the order of Quarter Sessions was to be quashed, and the order of removal confirmed ; otherwise the order of Quarter Sessions waa to be confirmed, and the order of removal quashed. Q'Brien and Cockle, in support of the order of Quarter Sessions.-Occupation and payment of rent by the deceased having been proved, the amount of the rent paid by him became immaterial, for, if it reached a certain amount, it would confer a settlement. The question, therefore, is whether his declaration is admissible evidence to prove that amount. This is clearly hearsay, and does not fall within any of the recognised exceptions to the rule rejecting that kind of evidence. The other side will probably seek to place it on the ground of a declaration by an occupier in possession. The principle on which the admiaaibility of such evidence rests is that, occupation being prima facie evidence of ownership in fee simple, whatever is stated by the party in occupation tending to cut down his interest is receivable: 1 Stark. Ev. 353, 365-6, 3d ed., Hollmvay v. Bakes, cited in Davies v. Pierce (2 T. E. 53), Peaceable d. Uncle v. Watson, (4 Taunt. 16), Walker v. Broadstock (\ Eap. 458), Doe d. Hindly v. Rickarly (5 Eap. 4), Due d. BaggalUy v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2)
...that judges in the latter part of the 19th century would have been prepared to rely on the hearsay rule to exclude such evidence. In R v Birmingham Overseers (1861) 1 B & S 763, 767, Cockburn CJ said: "People were formerly frightened out of their wits about admitting evidence, lest juries ......
-
Carr Estate v. Lyman Estate, (1981) 26 A.R. 581 (CA)
...9]. Doe d. William Kinglake v. Beviss (1849), 137 E.R. 181, consd. [para. 10]. R. v. Birmingham Overseers (1861), 1 B. & S. 763; 121 E.R. 897, appld. [para. R. v. Governors of Exeter (1869), L.R. 4 Q.B. 341, appld. [para. 12]. Taylor v. Witham (1876), 3 Ch.D. 605, appld. [para. 13]. Cow......