The King against The Rector, Vestrymen, and Parishioners of St. James, Westminster
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1834 |
| Date | 19 November 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 93
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[241] the king against the rector, vestrymen, and parishioners of st. james, westminster. Wednesday, Nov. 19th, 1834. By a local Act for the relief of the poor, it was provided that, if any person found himself aggrieved by the rates or assessments, he should first apply to two justices, residing, &c., and, if not relieved, should be obliged to pay ; and then, upon an appeal to the next Quarter Sessions, it should be lawful for the justices there to cause so much money to be returned to the appellant as should appear to have been over-paid, and to make such order in the case as they should think fit. No power was given to the two justices to administer an oath, nor was there any direction as to the mode of hearing the complaint; and no appeal was given to the parish against the decision of the two justices : Held, that the clause, by necessary implication, gave the two justices power to hear the complaint, and relieve the party, if they thought fit, by reducing the assessment complained of. Two justices, on the complaint of a parishioner, made an order under the above clause. The order stated the complaint, and that the justices had heard the parties, and were of opinion that the sum of, &c. (a lower sum than that assessed), was the full yearly (6) By Btat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 69, so much of any former Act or Acts as relates to the affiliating of bastard children, and taking security from the fathers, and charging them with the maintenance, &c. and so much as renders an unmarried woman with child liable to be summoned, examiner], or removed, &c. is repealed, as to any child born or likely to be born a bastard after the passing of this Act (14th August 1834), or the mother or putative father of such child. By sect. 71, every child born a bastard after the passing of this Act is to follow the settlement of the mother until such child shall attain the age of sixteen, or acquire a settlement in its own right, and is to be maintained by the mother, so long as she shall be unmarried or a widow, as a part of her family, until such child shall attain the age of sixteen. By sect. 72, when any child shall hereafter be born a bastard, and shall, by reason of the mother's inability to maintain it, become chargeable to any parish, the overseers, may apply to the next Quarter Sessions after such child shall have become chargeable, for an order of maintenance upon the person whom they shall charge with being the father, to reimburse the parish ; and the Court, after such proceeding as is there directed, shall (under certain restrictions as to evidence, and as to the extent of payment to be enforced, and its application) make such order upon the father as shal appear to them just and reasonable. 94 THE KING V. PARISHIONERS OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER 2 AD.& E.242. value of the premises] and they adjudged that the party should be relieved by reducing the estimate on which the assessment was made, to the latter sum. It appeared by affidavit, that, upon the hearing of such complaint, the justices declared the rate to be made upon an erroneous principle, and, after viewing the premises, and receiving some statements not on oath, reduced the assessment, laying down at the same time as the proper principle to be followed, a different one from that on which the rate had been made. The regularity of the order, on the face of it, was not questioned : Held, that the order having been made by competent jurisdiction, the Court could not inquire into the sufficiency of the reasons for making it. In Hilary term last, a rule was obtained calling on the prosecutor to shew cause why an order of two justices, described in the rule, and previously brought up by certiorari, should not be quashed for insufficiency. Affidavits were filed in support of the present rule, by which the facts appeared to be as follows:- In a rate made for the relief of the poor of the parish of St. James, Westminster, and published May 5th, 1833, the Earl of Burlington was assessed at the sum of 4411. 9s., upon the rental or yearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Justices of Cheshire
...and this Court, considering that they had jurisdiction, directed them to hear.] In Rex v. The Parishioners of St. James, Westminster (2 A. & E. 241), the Court allowed the question, whether the justices had exceeded their jurisdiction, to be discussed on affidavit; and Taunton J. said that ......
-
William Baylis v Henry Eustatius Strickland, John Moseley Gilbert Cheek, and James Atkins, Esquires
...51, 9 B. & C. 1; Pearce v. Morris, 4 N. & M. 48, 2 A. & E. 84, ante, 460. 1MAN.&G.600. BAYLIS V. STRICKLAND 473 St. James, Westminster (2 A. & E. 241). The conviction ought to have been received as conclusive evidence for the defendants. Basten v. Carew (h). [Maule J. There something was do......
-
Clarke
...(5 B. & C. 816), Hex v. The Justices of the Nwih Ruling of Yorkshire (6 B. & C. 152), Bex v. The Parishioners of St. James, Westminster (2 A. & E. 241), (a) Vaughan, 135. There, as he argued, the sheriffs were in Court, and therefore the commitment was by order of Court, without warrant. (i......
-
Humble against Mitchell
...or that, if they were not, sect. 80, which takes away the certiorari, applied. In Rex v. The Parishioners of St. James, Westminster (2 A. & E. 241), where an order of two justices was brought up by certiorari, and it was moved to quash the order on affidavits shewing want of jurisdiction, T......