The King against The Inhabitants of the Town and Parish of Henley-upon-Thames
| 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. 112
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & P. 445; 6 L. J. M. C. 76.
[294] the king against the inhabitants of the town and parish of henley-upon-thames. Wednesday, January 25th, 1837. The renting and occupation of a granary, lying over another building, and under the same roof with it, but accessible only by a ladder from the outside, and having no communication with the building below, conferred no settlement under stat. 59 G. 3, c. 50. [S. C. 1 N. & P. 445; 6 L. J. M. C. 76.] On appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Matthew Chipp was removed from the town and parish of Henley-upon-Thames in Oxfordshire to the parish of Burghfield in Berkshire, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The pauper acquired a settlement, before the year 1819, in the appellant parish of Burghfield. In 1821, the pauper, being in trade as a mealman, and resident in the respondent parish, hired a granary of one Paulin, at the rent of 41. a year. The granary was an upper one, forming one entire floor, and above a granary which stood in a yard belonging to a dwelling-house of the said Paulin, in Henley-upon-Thames, which yard opened by a gateway on the high road. The two granaries adjoined to, and were under the same roof with, a stable, and were detached from the dwelling-house. There was no internal communication between the lower and the upper granary, or between the upper granary and the stable, the only entrance to the upper granary being a separate and distinct entrance from the outside, by means of a move-able ladder, placed in the yard, and reaching from the ground to a door on the side of the same granary. In 1822, whilst the pauper still held this granary, he hired, of one Major, another granary or loft, in the parish of Henley-upon-Thames, at the rent of 71. a year. The last-mentioned granary was [295] one entire floor, and was over a stable, in a yard behind the dwelling-house of the said Major. The stable and granary were detached from the last-mentioned dwelling-house, and there was an approach to them without entering the dwelling-house. There was no internal communication between the stable and granary, the only entrance to the granary being a separate and distinct one from the outside, by means of a moveable ladder, placed in the yard, and reaching from the ground to a door in the side...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeyaretnam JB v Attorney General
...point all the judges in the two great cases which exhaust the learning in the subject - Burdett v Abbott 104 ER 501 and Stockdale v Hansard 112 ER 112 - are agreed, and are emphatic. The jurisdiction of the Houses over their own members, their right to impose discipline within their walls, ......
-
Prebble v. Television New Zealand Ltd., (1994) 170 N.R. 383 (PC)
...34. Cases Noticed: Burdett v. Abbot (1811), 14 East 1; 104 E.R. 501, refd to. [para. 13]. Stockdale v. Hansard (1839), 9 Ad. & El. 1; 112 E.R. 112, refd to. [para. Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884), 12 Q.B.D. 271, refd to. [para. 13]. British Railways Board v. Pickin, [1974] A.C. 765; [1974] ......
-
The Queen against the Inhabitants of Ripon
...both the hiring and the occupation; Regiiia v. Caverswall (10 A. & E. 270), Bex v. Watering (5 B. & Ad. 971), Rex v. Henley-upon-Thames (6 A. & E. 294), Rex v. Great and Little Uswm-th and North Biddick (5 A. & E. 261). It is true tbat some doubts have been raised as to the state of facts w......
-
The Queen against The Recorder of Leeds. [in the QUEEN'S BENCH]
...shop was a separate and distinct building; consistently with the examination, the case may be one to which Rex v. Henley-ityon-Thames (6 A. & E. 294), would apply. Pasbley, contra. As to the first objection, although this Court has saidj that the218 THE QUEEN V. THE RECORDER OF PONTEFRACT 2......