The King against The Inhabitants of Whitchurch

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1827
Date01 January 1827
CourtCourt of the King's Bench

English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 837

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.

The King against The Inhabitants of Whitchurch

7B.&C..574. THE KING V. WHITCHURCH 837 the king against the inhabitants of whitohurch. 1827. A parish certificate, dated the 7th of September 1758, purported, in the body of it, to have been granted to a pauper and his family by two churchwardens and two overseers. It was signed and sealed by two overseers, and by one churchwarden only. The churchwardens for the year 1758 were nominated at Easter, and were proved to have been sworn into office on the 15th of September, at the visitation. But there was no direct evidence of their having been sworn into office before that time. The certifying parish, after the date of the certificate, had frequently relieved the pauper and different members of his family while they were residing in other parishes: Held, that in favour of such an ancient certificate, which had been treated by the certifying parish as valid, the Court would presume that the churchwarden who executed the certificate was sworn before he executed it, and, therefore, that it was duly executed by him as churchwarden: Held, secondly, that the execution by two overseers and one churchwarden was an execution by the major part of the ò churchwardens and overseers within the statute 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30. ò Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby, they removed W. Bray the Younger, his wife and children, from the parish of .Whitchurch, in the county of Southampton, to the parish of Saint Mary Bourne, in the same county, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following ease :- [574] The following certificate was produced on the part of the parish of Whitchurch:-"Southampton to wit. We, John Harbutt, William Piper, William Arundel, William Philpott, churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Saint Mary Bourne, in the county aforesaid, do hereby own and acknowledge William Bray Junior, and Elizabeth his wife, William, aged about five years, Mary, aged about three years, and Elizabeth, aged about two years, their children, to be our inhabitants, legally settled in the said parish of Saint Mary Bourne. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this 7th day of September 1758." The instrument was signed by W. Piper, as one of the churchwardens, and by W. Arundel and W. Philpot, the two overseers, and attested by two witnesses, and was duly allowed by two justices on the 12th September 1758, who certified that Alexander Neave, one of the witnesses who attended the execution of the certificate, had made oath before them that he saw the churchwardens and overseers of the said parish, whose hands and seals were subscribed and set to the certificate, severally sign and seal the same, and the names of the said: Alexander Neave and Thomas May, whose hands were subscribed as witnesses to the execution of the certificate, were of their own proper handwriting respectively. Richard Loft produced the certificate from the parish chest of Whitchurch, which was admitted as coming from the proper place. It was proved that William Bray Junior, the grandfather of the pauper, resided in Whitchurch till the time of his death in 1799; that W. Bray, his son, also named in the certificate, has resided there ever since the certificate was granted; and that the pauper resided there from the time of his [575] birth until the time of his removal under the order. It appeared by the visitation-books, produced by the registrar of the Bishop's Court, that Saint Mary Bourne is in the diocese of Winchester, and is a peculiar in the jurisdiction of the chancellor's visitation ; that John Harbutt and William Piper were sworn churchwardens for Saint Mary Bourne in the year 1758, on the 15th September in that year; that no churchwardens appeared by the books to have been sworn in at the visitation from the year 1751 to 1758; that the visitation-book for 1750 was lost. It also appeared from the evidence of the registrar, that it was the course of office to make an entry in the visitation-books of the swearing in of churchwardens at the time of swearing, whether the swearing took place at the visitation or afterwards; that if it took place afterwards, the registrar always entered it, but he had not looked over the books before his time to see whether there were any entries of such subsequent swearing. It appeared that at Easter 1750 J. Longman was nominated as churchwarden; that in 1757 J. Cowdery and E. Rattin were nominated churchwardens, and that John Harbutt...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Bray, Appellants, Somer, Respondents
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 22 February 1862
    ...execute his office before he is gworn, though it is convenient he should be sworn;" but, in The King v. The Inhabitants of Whitchurch (7 B. & C. 573, 584), Littledale J. observed, "Upon the question whether a churchwarden can lawfully do any act before he is actually sworn into office, I en......
  • The King against The Inhabitants of Corfe Mullen
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 1 January 1830
    ...a civil right for himself, unless he is fully and completely installed in such office. He is not so until sworn in. In Bex v. Whitchwreh (7 B. & C. 573), the Court assumed that the oath of office was necessary to constitute a churchwarden de jure. In Foot v. Prowse (1 Stra. 625), King C.J. ......
  • The King against The Inhabitants of Upton Gray
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 12 May 1830
    ...only had been sworn in. Such a presumption would be well warranted according to Sex v. Catesby (2 B. & C. 814), Bex V. Whitchwch (7 B. & C. 573). It must be conceded that the presumption to be made in this case is one of fact, and not of law; but it ought to have been made, even if it be pr......
  • The King against E. Brain
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the King's Bench
    • 9 May 1832
    ...having refused to-take it accordingly, he may be amerced, Hawkins, P. C. book 2, c. 10, s. 46. In Eex v. The Inhabitants of Whitchurch (7 B. & C. 573), Littledale J. doubted whether a churchwarden could lawfully do any act before-he was sworn into office; and in Tremayne's Pleas of the Crow......
  • 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