The King against The Inhabitants of Benneworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1824 |
| Date | 31 May 1824 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 107 E.R. 571
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[775] the king against the inhabitants of bennewokth. Monday, May 31st, 1824. A pauper was hired for a year, and bad by agreement a house and garden, a rood of potatoe land, and the keep of a cow on his master's land. After the pauper had served ten years, his cow failing in milk, the pauper had in lieu of the cow two heifers kept for him, through the kindness of his master, and not in consequence of any bargain. The potatoe land and the keep of two heifers was of the annual value of 101., but the potatoe land and the keep of the one cow was of less annual value than 101.: Held, that the pauper, by having the potatoe land and the keep of the two heifers, before the passing of the stat. 59 G. 3, c. 50, gained a settlement: but, semble, that by having the potatoe land and the keep of the two heifers after the passing of the 59 G. 3, c. 50, he would not have gained a settlement. Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby James Fletcher, his wife and family, were removed from the parish of Benneworth, in the parts of Lindsey and county of Lincoln, to the parish of Calcethorpe in the said parts and county ; the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: In 1803, the pauper, James Fletcher (then a married man) was hired by yearly hiring as a confined labourer in husbandry with Mr. Day of Calcethorpe, farmer. The pauper had, according to agreement, a house and garden, and a rood of potatoe land, and the keep of a cow on his master's land. The cow was instead of so much money for wages. The pauper remained in Mr. Day's service eleven years, during which time, namely, in the year 1813, the pauper's cow failed in milk, on which account, through the kindness of his master, and not in consequence of any bargain, the pauper had in the place of the former cow, two heifers kept for him by his master on his master's land for about eleven months. The potatoe land and keep of the two heifers were together of the value of 101. per annum and upwards. But the potatoe land and keep of one cow were below that value. On leaving Mr. Day, the pauper went to live as a confined labourer with Mr. Briggs at Seamblesby, [776] with whom he remained, five years. For the last three years of the pauper's service with Mr. Briggs, the pauper was relieved in Seamblesby by the parish of Donnington on Baine. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hughes v Overseers of the Parish of Chatham
...[66] observed, " It has been established by a series of cases, which were considered and confirmed in that of The King v. Benneworth (2 B. & C. 775; 4 D. & E. 355), that it was a sufficient occupation of a tenement, if the pauper had an interest in a part of the profits of the land by perce......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Newtown
...E., another flannel manufacturer, told him of his former (6)1 Lord Denman C.J. was attending the Privy Council. (Vf See Rex v. Bmneuwrth, 2 B. & C. 775. 1AD.&E.239. THE KING U NEWTOWN 1197 employment with W., and requested E. to take him on the( same terms ; but E. told him that one year wo......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Iken
...and occupation, and even the right to use and occupy, is not enough, without an (a) Rex v. Hollington, 3 East, 113, Rex v. Benneworth, 2 B. & C. 775. 2 AD. & E. 151. THE KING V. IKEN 59 actual interest of some kind in the thing occupied. An occupation as servant is insufficient: Rex v. Ches......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Langriville
...case was argued on a former day in this term by [900] N. E. Clarke and Hildyard in support of the order of sessions. Rex v. Benneworth (2 B. & C. 775), is in point. It was decided by the Court upon consideration, and was not over-ruled in Bex v. Thornham (6 B. & C. 733); for Bex v. Bennewor......