The King against The Inhabitants of Snape
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 1837 |
| Date | 25 January 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 106
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against the inhabitants of snape. Wednesday, January 25th, 1837. Pauper was hired by D. to take care of his stock on certain marshes. It was agreed that he should have 12s. a week wages, and the keep of a cow, and he was to occupy a house on the marshes, rent free. The house had been hired by D. with the marshes, and was always appropriated to the person who looked after the stock there. Pauper was to go into the house at Michaelmas, and it was stipulated, at his desire, " that he should not be obliged to leave the house unless he had notice to quit at Michaelmas." He took charge of the stock, entered on the cottage in 1817, and resided there nine years, having no other employment than the charge of D.'s stock. The sessions, on appeal against an order of removal, found that the pauper had occupied the cottage as servant, not as tenant, and bad gained no settlement by such occupation ; and they sent a case, desiring the opinion of this Court, whether or not they had come to a proper decision. Held, that, on the above facts, the finding of the sessions was not necessarily wrong, and therefore that it ought not to be disturbed. On appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Abigail, widow of William Alexander, was removed from the parish of St. Osyth, in Essex, to the parish of Snape, in Suffolk, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. In 1817 William Alexander, then a servant in the employ of William Kendall Dawson, was engaged by [279] him to take care of his stock upon the marshes of St. Osyth. It was agreed that he should receive 12s. a week wages, and the keep of one cow, four sheep, and two pigs, upon the marshes; and for this purpose he was to occupy, rent free, a certain house situate upon the marshes. This house had been originally built for, and had always been appropriated to the use of, the person who looked after the stock upon the marshes, and was never let to any other person ; and Dawson hired the marshes and the cottage at the same time. Alexander was to go into the house at Michaelmas; and, at the time he commenced taking care of the stock on the marshes, it was stipulated, at bis express desire, that he should not be obliged to leave the house unless be had notice to quit at Michaelmas. Alexander took charge of the stock, and possession of the cottage, in 1817...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Hughes v Overseers of the Parish of Chatham
...as a householder, under the Irish reform act. E. v. The Inhabitants of South Kilvington (3 G. & D. 157), E. v. The Inhabitants of Snape (6 A. & E. 278) are also in point. In Bertie v. Beaumont (16 East, 33), it was held that a servant, occupying a cottage, with less wages on that account, d......
-
Browne v Marquis of Sligo
...136. Rex v. ThursterENR 3 M. & S. 276. Rex v. BardwellENR 2 B. & C. 161. Hughes v. Overseers of ChathamUNK 5 M. & G. 54. Rex v. Snape 6 A. & E. 278. Westmeath v. Hogg 3 Ir. Law Rep. 27. Parker v. TaswellENR 2 De G. & J. 559. Pain v. CombesENR 1 De G. & J. 34. Calverly v. Williams 1 Ves. jun......
-
The Queen against Wall Lynn
...Any house he might occupy while he was servant might be so in some sense ; but the cases where a party has been (c) See Bex v. Snape, 6 A. & E. 278. 884 THE QUEEN V. RUSCOE SAD.SE. 8S8. held to occupy such premises as a butler's pantry or a coach-house in the character of servant are very d......