The King against The Inhabitants of Great Yarmouth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1798 |
| Date | 24 November 1798 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 1271
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
3 East, 563.
8T. R.69. THE KING V. GREAT YARMOUTH 127.1 the king against the inhabitants of great yarmouth. Saturday, Nov. 24th, 1798. An unmarried woman may be removed to the place of her settlement on account of her being pregnant, under stat. 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 6, even though she be residing under a certificate from her own parish. [3 East, 563.] Two justices, by an order, removed Mary Pestill, widow, from the parish of Great Yarmouth to the parish of Ditchingham, in Norfolk; and on appeal the sessions quashed the order for informality, not stating any case for the opinion of this Court. But in the order of removal it was recited, and adjudged, that the pauper was with child, which was likely to be born a bastard; that she was living in Great Yarmouth, not having gained a settlement there; that " she was deemed to be a person actually chargeable to the parish of Great Yarmouth;" and that her place of settlement was at Ditchingham ; without negativing her having a certificate from any parish. Both the orders having been removed here by certiorari, Law obtained a rule, to shew cause why the order of sessions should not be quashed; against which Mingay and Hultpn now shewed cause; who, after stating the question intended to be raised in this case to be, whether or not the statute 35 Geo. 3, e. 101, s. 1 (a)1 extends to an unmarried woman who is residing under a certificate 1 argued in the negative : because no mention is therein made of certificated [69] persons ; and because the object of that statute in general, was to give privileges to paupers, not to take any away from them. That therefore this Acb ought not to be extended, by implication, beyond the words of it, in order to abridge the privileges of any paupers. That, if the Act did not extend to certificated persons, the order of removal was defective, in not negativing that the pauper was living at Great Yarmouth under a certificate; for that in R.\. St. Mary PPestport (a)2, it was ruled, that the pregnancy of a certificated person was no ground for removing her as a person actually chargeable; and consequently if this pauper were living undei;-a certificate, she was not liable to be removed. Per Curiam. The orders, which alone are before the Court, are scarcely sufficient to raise the question, that (it is said) was meant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Alveley
......The only case on this branch of the Act is E. v. Great Yarmouth (a), where the Court put a strict construction on the words of the clause, and held that they extended to a certificated single woman with ......