The Queen against Greene and Others, Overseers of the Poor of Gateshead, Durham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1852 |
| Date | 21 January 1852 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 117 E.R. 1485
QUEEN'S BENCH.
17Q.B.7M. THE QUEEN V. GREENE 1485 the queen against greene and others, Overseers of the Poor of Gateshead, Durham. Wednesday, January 21st, 1852. Quaere whether, under stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, ss. 61, 62, the Poor Law Commissioners can appoint to the office of collector of poor rates and assistant overseer in a parish, or whether the appointment of assistant overseer still belongs exclusively to the inhabitants of the parish in vestry, under stat. 59 G, 3, c. 12. But,-Where union guardians have, under an order of the Poor Law Commissioners, appointed an assistant overseer, the order is valid, by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, e. 76, s. 105, and the appointment is good, and the power of the inhabitants in vestry to elect an assistant overseer superseded, until the order is quashed on certiorari. So held on motion to quash a disallowance by the poor law auditor of a sum charged in the overseers' accounts for the salary of an assistant overseer elected by the vestry.-The vestry of a parish forming part of a union elected R. (after stat. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101) to the office of assistant overseer of the parish. The union guardians, in the same month, appointed U. to be the collector of rates and assistant overseer of the same parish. A quarter's salary having been paid to U. by the guardians of the union, the poor law auditor disallowed the sum in the union accounts, and surcharged the amount upon the guardians who had signed a cheque for the payment, On appeal by these guardians under stat. 7 & 8 Viet. e. 101, s. 36, the commissioners, by an order addressed to the auditor, the union guardians, the appellants individually, and the overseers, declared the disallowance unlawful and directed the payment to be allowed ; and it was allowed by the auditor on his next audit.-Held, on motion by the overseers to quash the allowance, that it was valid, being made pursuant to an unrescinded order of the Poor Law Commissioners, whether U. was rightly elected or not. Thomaa Christopher Maynard, Esquire, auditor of the Durham audit district in the county of Durham, at his audit in November 1850, disallowed a certain item in the account of the guardians of the poor of the Gateshead Poor Law Union, namely : [794] The allowance of 601., half a year's salary to Thomas Shafto Robson as assistant overseer of the said pariah. And he allowed a certain other item, which had not been allowed in the said account, namely: The sum of 301., one quarter's salary, paid by the guardians of the said union to John Usher as collector of poor rates and assistant overseer of the same parish. The said disallowance and allowance by the auditor having been brought into this Court by certiorari, Pashley, in last Michaelmas term, obtained a rule to shew cause why they should not be quashed (a). The following facts appeared on affidavit, and by tha auditor's return to the writ. The parish of Gateshead forms part of a poor law union, which is joined with other unions in a district for the purpose of audit. On 6th November, 1849, a vestry meeting of the inhabitants of Gateshead was convened [795] for the purpose of electing an assistant overseer of that parish, under stat. 59 G. 3, c. 12, s. 7. Robson and (ft) The rule called upon the prosecutors to shew cause: why the disallowance in the account of the above mentioned overseers, for the year ending 29th September, 1850, by Thomas Christopher Maynard, Esq. as auditor of the district, of the sums of 60t., of 91, 6s. 4d., of 11. 18s. 6d. and of 41. lls., severally disallowed by him on the 15th day of November, 1850, and the allowance, in the balance sheet or account of Gateshead Poor Law Union for the same period, by the said T. C. Maynard as auch auditor, of the sum of 301., on the said 15th day of November, 1850, which said sum of 301. had at a previous audit been disallowed by tbe said T. C. Maynard, should not respectively be quashed ; and why the said several suraa ao disallowed and allowed respectively ahould not be paid to the parties respectively entitled thereto by the parties who aught respectively to pay the same; and why the costs of the defendants incurred in the prosecution of this certiorari should not be paid by the treasurer of the board of guardians of the Gateshead Poor Law Union : upon notice of this rule to be given to the said T. C. Maynard and to the clerk of the said board of guardians. The items of 91. 6s. 4d., 11. 18s. 6d. and 41. lla. will not require further notice, the objections to them, having been waived on the argument. The grounds of the certiorari will appear sufficiently by the report. I486 THE QUEEN V. GREENE 17 Q. B. 7M. Usher were named as candidates, and Robson was elected; and on November 30th he was appointed to the said office of assistant overseer by warrant of two justices, at a salary of 1201. a year. He accepted and entered upon the office. On November 20th, 1849, the board of guardians of the Gateshead Union appointed Usher to be the assistant overseer and collector of rates for tbe same parish of Gateshead ; and early in 1850 the guardians paid him 301., one quarter's salary. A question arising as to the legality of the appointment, no further sum was paid. A quarter's salary was paid to Robson by the overseers in March, 1850. At tbe district audit before Maynard, on 16th and 17th May, 1850, the auditor disallowed the payment to Usher (after hearing the legality of his appointment discussed), and stated his reason in writing, namely, that the guardians were not legally authorized to appoint Usher to the office of assistant overseer and collector: and he surcharged the said sum of 301. upon three guardians of the union who had signed the cheque for payment of Usher's salary. The rest of the account was allowed. The parties aggrieved by the surcharge appealed to the Poor Law Commissioners for relief under stats. 7 & 8 Viet. c. 101, s. 36, and 11 & 12 Viet. c. 91, s. 4; and an order under seal was thereupon issued by the poor law board, dated 28th October, 1850, addressed to the guardians of the union, the churchwardens and overseers of the pariah, the auditor, the three appellant guardians of tbe union by name, the clerk of Petty Sessions for the division, and the treasurer of the union, whereby the board decided that the reasons stated by the auditor for his surcharge were [796] unlawful, and ordered that the payment made to Usher should be re-entered in the account. No notice of an intended appeal had been given to the overseers of Gateshead, or the guardians of the union. At the following audit, November 15th, 1850, the auditor, in conformity to the said order of the Poor Law Commissioners, rescinded his former disallowance, allowed the salary claimed by Usher, and stated in writing that he did so "in obedience to the order of the poor law board for that purpose, bearing date the 28th day of October last." He also disallowed the sum of 601., appearing by the account to have been paid to Robson as " assistant overseer's half year's salary," and stated in writing, as his reason, that the appointment of Robson as assistant overseer was illegal, " inasmuch as an appointment had previously been made by the board of guardians legally entitled to make the appointment of assistant overseer of the said parish." The appointment by the guardians took place under the following circumstances. The Gateshead Union was formed in 1836, before and since which time Gateshead has been a parish maintaining its own poor. At a meeting of guardians of the Gates-head Union on May 8th, 1838, James Hudson was (as appeared by their minutes) " appointed collector of poor rates " for Gateshead parish. Before his appointment there bad been no paid collector, but the duties had been discharged by the overseers for the time being. There had been several previous orders of the commissioners (the first on April 5th 1837, the last on August 1st, 1837), addressed to the union guardians, directing them within specified times to appoint collectors for such parishes as the guardians should deem to require them ; [797] and collectors had been appointed under these orders, but none for Gateshead. The time limited by the last of these orders expired on September 15, 1837, no appointment having then been made for Gateshead. On June 8th, 1838, the Poor Law Commissioners, in execution of the powers vested in them by stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, made an order: "That the guardians of the poor of the Gateshead Union, in the county of Durham, shall, within one month from the date of this order, appoint a fit and proper person to be the collector of the poor rates of the parish of Gateshead, if the said guardians shall deem it to require a collector, and shall, as soon as conveniently may be after such...
To continue reading
Request your trial