The Queen against Crossley and Robinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1839 |
| Date | 06 May 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 51
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
s. C. 2 P. & D. 319; 8 L. J. M. C. 81; 3 Jur. 675.
10 AD, tt E. 188. THE QUEEN V. CROSSLEY 51 [132] the queen against crossley and robinson. Monday, May 6th, 1839. An indictment against overseers on sect. 47 of stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, for not accounting to the auditor of a union, upon request, on a day appointed by him, ia bad, unless it appear that there was some rule, order, or regulation of the commissioners that the overseers should account upon such request. Where no such order, &c. ia alleged, the indictment cannot be sustained after verdict, merely because it appears, by inference, or the inducement, that defendants have not in fact accounted for one whole quarter. Upon such indictment it is sufficient, at leaat after verdict, to allege the order to have been made by the "Poor Law Commissioners for England and Wales," without naming each commissioner; and to state that a copy of the order under seal, &c. was " duly sent" to the overseers, without alleging actual service of it on them. Per Lord Denman C.J. and Patteson J. Qutere, whether disobedience of an order of the commissioners to account be indictable under sect. 98 before the third offence 1 [S. C. 2 P. & D. 319 ; 8 L. J. M. C. 81; 3 Jur. 675.] Indictment (7th January 1838), on stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 47, against overseers for not accounting. The first count recited an order of " the Poor-Law Commissioners for England and Wales " forming the township of Todmorden and Walsden, and other districts, into a union ; and that a union and board of guardians were duly formed accordingly. It further stated another order by the same commissioners, that the guardians should appoint an auditor of the union ; and that such auditor should, four time* in every year, that is to say, within thirty days of each of the following days, viz. Lady-Day, Midsummer-Day, Michaelmaa-Day, and Christmas-Day, audit the accounts of the several parishes, &c. comprised in the union, " according to the laws in force for the time being for the administration of the relief of the poor:" that a copy of the last-mentioned order, under seal, &c. was "duly sent" by the said commissioners to the overseers of each parish, &c., according to the provisions of the Act; that defendants were overseers of the said township of T. and W., and that the guardians of the union had duly appointed J. Gledhill to be auditor, whereof defendants had notice; that it was the duty of defendants, as such overseers, under and by virtue of the provisions of the Act, to make and render an account to the [133] said J. G., as such auditor, when and as often as, the rules, orders, and regulations of the commissioners did direct: that afterwards, on a day within thirty days of Christmas-Day 1838, viz. on, &c., defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against Mortlock and Others
...Hex v. Wade (1 B. & Ad, 861), Rex v. Gilkes(d), Rex v. Soper (3 B. & C. 857), Rex v. Gash (1 Stark. N. P. C. 441), Reffina v. Crossley (10 A. & E. 132). In the first three cases the averment was only that the defendants "had notice" of the order. In the last case it was merely stated that "......
-
The Queen against Price
...marrying, who may "solemnize marriage" as there provided. So sect. 19 of stat. 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 86, (a) 2 Bur. 799. See Regina v. Crossley, 10 A. & E. 132: Rex v. Wright, 1 Burr. 543. (*) Cited in Sex v. Bobinsm, 2 Bur. 803. 11 AD. ft E. 735. THE QUEEN V. PRICE 593 confers a privilege; for th......