The Queen against The Inhabitants of St. Margaret, Leicester
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1842 |
| Date | 22 January 1842 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 220
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 G. & D. 625; 11 L. J. M. C. 48; 6 Jur. 503.
220 THE QUEEN V. ST. MARGARET, LEICESTER 2 Q. B. 689. [559] the queen against the inhabitants of st. margaret, leicester. Saturday, January 22d, 1842. N., by his will, after directing payment of debts and legacies, devised lands in trust to sell, the trustee to stand possessed of the monies arising from such sale upon trust to pay and divide the same equally among the devisor's nine children; and he gave and bequeathed the shares of such daughters as should be married at the time of his decease to and for their own separate and absolute use; their respective receipts alone to be discharges for the same. Pauper, before the death of N., was married to one of the daughters, and lived with her in a house, part of the devised estates, as tenant to N. After the death of N., pauper continued to occupy and reside in the house as tenant to the trustees, paying them rent. They divided the rents monthly among the nine children. Such residence by the pauper, and division of rents by the trustees, continued for two years after N.'s death. The estates were then sold, and the proceeds divided according to the will, pauper receiving his wife's share. Held that the pauper had not, during his residence after the death of N., such an equitable estate or right as conferred a settlement. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 625; 11 L. J. M. C. 48; 6 Jur. 503.] On appeal against an order of justices removing John Inge from the parish of St. Margaret, in the borough of Leicester in the county of Leicester, to the parish of Lutterworth, in the same county, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon a case, the material parts of which are as follows. John Norton of Leicester, being seised of fourteen freehold houses situate in the said parish of St. Margaret, by his will, dated 24th October 1832 (a copy of which waa annexed to the case), after directing payment of his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, and a certain pecuniary legacy bequeathed out of his personal estate, gave, subject thereto, all his personal estate, and also gave, devised, and bequeathed all his lands, messuages, tenements, hereditaments, and real estate whatsoever and wheresoever, to Richard Kawson and Thomas Cooper, their heirs, executors, &c., for ever: upon trust that the said trustees, or the survivor of them, did and should, as soon as conveniently might be after his decease, sell and dispose thereof, either by public auction or by private contract, for the best price that could be obtained for the same, and did and should stand possessed of the monies arising from such sale, after pay-[560]-ment of the costs and expenses attendant thereon, upon trust to pay and divide the same equally between and amongst the testator's examination is taken by the removing justices "at Sheffield : " moreover she and the other paupers are stated to be " chargeable to Sheffield." Now this statement of being chargeable we find to have been considered by this Court as material upon this very point of inhabitancy. In the case of Sex v. Binegar (7 East, 377) it was stated in the order of removal that the paupers " lately came and intruded themselves " into the parish, "endeavouring there to settle as inhabitants thereof;" and the objection to the order was that the complaint did not state that the paupers then were, but lately came, and so that the justices had no jurisdiction. To this it was answered by the Court: "The order states, that the magistrates adjudge it to be true, that the paupers are likely to become chargeable to the parish, which could not be if they were not in the parish at the time." And there is certainly no ground for presuming any change of circumstances, as the examination and order are by the same justices and bear date on the same day, the 3d of September. From these circumstances, taken together, we think it sufficiently appears that the mother was then in the township of Sheffield. Then as to the children : the helpless infancy of the two younger (three years and one year of age) raises a presumption of law and common sense that...
To continue reading
Request your trial