The King against The Inhabitants of Thornham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Date | 01 January 1827 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 108 E.R. 621
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
S. C. 5 L. J. M. C. O. S. 70.
6B.&C.73& THE KING V. THORNHATM 621 [733] the king against the inhabitants of thoknham. 1827. Where a shepherd served a farmer for two years, under an agreement for "12s. per week, and to have twenty-one ewes going:" Held, that this contract only gave the shepherd a right to have his ewes fed in the same manner as his master's flock, either on pasture or on dry food, and, therefore, that the pauper did not gain any settlement in T., although the feed of the ewes was worth more than 101. a year, it not being any part of the bargain that the sheep should be pasture fed. [S. C. 5 L. J. M. C. 0. S. 70.] Upon appeal against an order of justices, for the removal of E. Hammond, labourer, his wife, and children, from the parish of Sedgford, in the county of Norfolk, to the parish of Thornham, in the same county; the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :- The pauper being a married man, went on Midsummer-Day 1812, to live with one Barsham, a farmer residing in the parish of Thornham, as his shepherd, under the following written agreement:--" April 28th, 1812, hired E. Hammond, shepherd, at 12s. per week, 6d. per head a lamb at clip-day, three weeks' board in lambing, meat of victuals, and pluck when he kills a pig, and to have twenty-one ewes going, to come to his place at Old Midsummer-Day next." The pauper came to live with Barsham under this agreement, and brought with him the ewes and lambs and his furniture. For the first quarter of a year he resided in Barsham's farm-house, and for the remainder of the two years he lived in a cottage of his master's, near the farm-house, with his wife and family, rent free. The going of the twenty-one ewes was worth more than 101. a year. During a fortnight or three weeks of the first year, the ewes were fed off Barsham's farm on the turnips of a neighbouring farmer, and during part of the second winter they were fed on straw. [734] Nolan and Maltby in support of the order of sessions. The question in this case is; first, whether an agreement for the going of twenty-one sheep be an agreement under which the growing produce of the farm is to be taken at all events : secondly, whether, supposing that under and by virtue of that contract the growing produce might be, and in point of fact was taken, that is not substantially a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Langriville
...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. Benneworth is not alluded to in that case. But if Bex v. Thornham over-rules Bex v. Benneworth, it may be conceded that it must b......
-
The King against The Inhabitants of Nacton
...gained a settlement by coming to settle on a tenement of the value of 101. a year, Bex v. Bennewvrth (2 B. & G. 775). Bex v. Thornham (6 B. & C. 733), is not applicable, because the sessions there did not find what was the meaning of the term " going." Prendergast and Austin contra. First, ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Cumberworth Half
...the cow should be pastured on Haigh's land, the sessions (as Bayley J. observed, when discussing a similar question in Sex v. Thornham (6 B. & C. 733)), should have stated in the case that they so understood it: but they have stated, in substance, the contrary. To put the test applied in Be......