The Queen against The Inhabitants of Outwell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1839 |
| Date | 02 February 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 1431
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 P. & D. 610; 8 L. J. M. C. 27.
[836] thk queen against the inhabitants of outwell. Saturday, February 2d, 1839. Under sect. 79 of stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, copies of all the examinations touching the settlement of a pauper, taken by the justices upon making an order of removal, must be sent with the copy of the order; and the omission of any one examination is ground of appeal, although it may not contain the evidence upon which the order was in fact founded. [S. C. 1 P. & D. 610; 8 L. J. M. C. 27.] On appeal against an order for the removal of Penelope Bott and her eight children, from the parish of Outwell to the hamlet of March, the sessions for the county of Norfolk quashed the order, subject to the following case. The removing magistrates took the examination of Penelope Bott, John Bott the father of the pauper's husband, and Charles Smith, which stated a settlement gained by the pauper's husband by apprenticeship in the appellant parish. Before making the order, they also took the examination of one William Clarke, which referred to the hiring of some land by the pauper's husband in the respondent parish : but the magistrates made the order of removal upon the examination of the said Penelope Bott, John Bott, and Charles Smith only; and those were the examinations sent with a duplicate order of removal to the appellant parish. The land as to which William Clarke was examined was the same tenement by the hiring of which the Court adjudged the pauper to have gained a settlement in the respondent .'parish. The notice of the grounds of appeal was as follows:-1. Because the person, who acted as overseer in obtaining the said order, was not duly appointed. 2, Because copies of all the examinations touching the settlement of the said paupers, taken by the said justices previous to signing the order, were not sent with the [837] counterpart thereof. 3. Because the paupers were settled in the parish of Outwell. It was contended, on the part of the respondents, that, as the notice of appeal did not deny the settlement stated in the examinations of Penelope Bott, John Bott, and Charles Smith, it must be taken to be admitted, and any evidence of that settlement was unnecessary; and the Court were of that opinion. It was then objected, by the appellants, that the examination of William Clarke ought to have been sent with the duplicate order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Ecclesall Bierlow
...is almost sure to be received in the course of the investigation ; and, as the removing parish is obliged to send all, Regina v. Outwell (9 A. & E. 836), and as it cannot appear how far the removal may have proceeded on the inadmissible part, an appeal will generally be successful. It will ......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rotherham
...case. It must be assumed that the justices here have returned all the examinations, because they were bound to do so: Regina v. Outwell (9 A. & E. 836). 6. The order discloses no evidence of a settlement. [Coleridge J. There is no doubt that there was evidence, whether sufficient or not.] P......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Stainforth
...Stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 79, requires that " a copy of the examination " shall be sent, Coleridge J. said, in Begina v. Outwell (9 A. & E 836, 839), that " ' examination ' means the entire body of evidence taken on the occasion of making the order: " that is, the oral evidence. If the wo......
-
The Queen against the inhabitants of Latchford
...done ; for no apprenticeship was proved. The respondents were bound to forward all the examinations to the appellants; Eegina v. Outwell (9 A. & E. 836): but they do not, by this, admit the truth of all that appears there. The justices were to act upon so much of the evidence as they believ......