The Queen against John Blanshard and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 February 1849 |
| Date | 01 February 1849 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1285
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 18 L. J. M. C. 110.
13 Q. B. J18. THE QUEEN V. BLANSHARD 1285 [318] hilary vacation (a). the qltben ayainst john blanshard and others. Thursday, February 1st, 1849. Mandamus commanding justices of the peace to hear and adjudicate on a complaint by overseers that a pauper was chargeable to and ought to be removed from their township. The return shewed that the defendants had received and begun to hear the complaint: and that, in the course of the investigation, it appeared that the pauper was chargeable to the township, had resided continuously in the township for ten years before the application, and, during six of these ten years (before the passing of stat. 9 & 10 Viet. c. 66) had received parochial reliel; and the justices thereupon decided that the pauper was irremoveable. Held, on demurrer, that the return was a sufficient answer, as it shewed that defendants had not declined to exercise their jurisdiction, but had exercised it, though erroneously. [S. C. 18L.J. M. C. 110.] Mandamus. The suggestion of the writ was that the defendants, who were justices of the peace for the East Kiding of Yorkshire, had in Petty Sessions refused to receive a complaint, from the overseers of the poor of the township of Hutton Cranswick, that a pauper was with his family chargeable to that township, and to hear, determine and adjudicate on it; and had dismissed it without hearing the merits. The precept of the writ was to receive the said complaint, and to hear and determine the merits thereof, and adjudicate thereon. The return, on which alone the decision of the Court proceeded, was as follows. " We John Blatishard, (leorge Thomas Clare and Francis Oppen Morris, within mentioned, do " "certify and return," &c., " that, on the fourth day of February within mentioned, the within mentioned complaint of the overseers of the poor of the township of Hutfcan Cranswick " in the East liiding, &c. " was made to and came on to be heard before us at the Petty Sessions within mentioned : and that the said cora-[319J-plaint was an application by the said overseers to us for a warrant for the removal of the within mentioned Samuel Dickinson and his within mentioned children from the township of Hutton Cranswick to such other parish, township or place as should be the place of their last legal settlement; and that the said complainants did not allege the said children or any one or more of them to be removeable from the aaid township of Hutton Cranswick otherwise than along with their said father :" And we further certify, &c. " that we did then and there receive the same complaint I and application and hear the merits thereof; and that on the said hearing it was made to appear to us, in due course of law and by the admission of the said complainants, that the said Samuel Dickinson at the time of the said application was residing with his said children in the said township of Hutton Cranswick, and that he had been there residing without interruption for the space of ten years next before the said application, but that, for the space of six years and upwards next before the said application, the said Samuel Dickinson had been in the constant receipt of ralief; for the earlier and greater part of the said space of six...
To continue reading
Request your trial