R v St. Mary, Whitechapel (Inhabitants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1848 |
| Date | 12 July 1848 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 811
QUEENS BENCH
[120] the queen against the inhabitants of st. mary, whitechapel. [Wednesday July 12th, 1848.] Pauper was residing in parish W. with her husband at the time of his death, which happened before the passing pf stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. 66. The parish obtained an order for her removal, and served notice of chargeability, &c. Before actual removal, the statute passed, the widpw not having completed a residence of twelve calendar months from the husband's(a)1 June 19th. Before Lord Denmaii C.J., Coleridge and Erie Js. (af Reported by H. Davison, Esq.812 THE QUEEN t). ST. MARY, VVHITECHAPEL 12 J. B. 121death. Held that, by sect. 2 of the statute, she was irremoveable till the completion of such residence, for that the clause, though prospective as to the removals contemplated, might be construed retrospectively as to the conditions under which removal should or should not be lawful. Held, also, that^ although the order was valid when made, it might be quashed on appeal, upon the widow being actually removed, after the passing of the Act, and within the twelve calendar months.[S. C. 17 L. J. M, C. 172. Referred to, Salford Overseers v. Manchester Overseers,1863, 3 B. & S. 603.]On appeal against an order of justices, for removing Sarah, the widow of William Badraan, and her five children, from the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, in Surrey, to the parish of St. Mary, Whitechapel, in Middlesex, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon a case, which was stated, in substance, as follows.William Badman, the husband of the pauper, was residing in St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, at the time of his death, which took place on 6th June 1846. His now widow, the pauper, was residing with him in the said parish at the time of his death. On llth August in the same year an order was made by two justices for the removal of the pauper and her five children from St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, to St. Maty, Whitechapel, as the place of their legal settlement. A copy of the said order, together with a copy of the examinations and a notice of chargeability, was duly served on the churchwardens and overseers of St. Mary, Whitechapel, on the said llth August. On the 26th of the same month the Act 9 & 10 Viet. c. 66, was passed and came into operation.On the 3d of September in the same year, the pauper and her children were removed by virtue of the said order from St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, to St. Mary, [121] Whitechapel. Oa 1st October in the same year the notice and grounds of appeal against the said order of removal were sent by the churchwardens and overseers of St. Mary, Whitechapel, to the churchwardens and overseers of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondaey : and the appeal, having been adjourned by consent at the October Sessions, came on for hearing and was heard at the Epiphany Quarter Sessions for Surrey. The pauper had continued to reside from the time of the death of her said husband until the said 3d September 1846, and, at the time of her removal under the said order, was residing in the said parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey; and during all that time had continued, and at the time of her removal still was, a widow and unmarried.At...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Securities and Investments Board and Another v Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association Ltd
...retrospective effect. Applying Yew Bon Tew v Kenderaan Bas MaraELR ([1983] 1 AC 553, 558) and R v St Mary Whitechapel (Inhabitants)ENR ((1848) 12 QB 120) a statute was only retrospective if it impaired a vested right, created a new obligation or attached a new disability in regard to events......
-
Re Powery & Forbes
...[1950] 2 All E.R. 525; (1950), 94 Sol. Jo. 552, dicta of Somervell, L.J. applied. (3) R. v. St. Mary, Whitechapel (Inhabitants)ENR(1848), 12 Q.B. 120; 116 E.R. 811, dictum of Lord Denman, C.J. applied. (4) Yew Bon Tew v. Kenderaan Bas Mara, [1983] 1 A.C. 553; [1982] 3 All E.R. 833, dicta of......
-
Re Barretto
...legislation in some degree. One of the requisites for its action is drawn from time antecedent to its passing: see Regina v The Inhabitants of St. Mary Whitechapel [1848] 12 KB 120 by Lord Denman, Chief Justice, at page 127. Is that prima facie objectionable so as to bring the presumption a......
-
Cardshops Ltd v John Lewis Properties Ltd
...the 25th March 1981 to this case would be to make the Order retrospective. 30The appellants also relied upon the case of R. -v- Inhabitants of St. Mary. Whitechapel (1848) 12 Q.B.120. There the defendants claimed the right to remove a widow from the parish. Section 2 of the Poor Removal Ac......