The Queen against The Justices of Carnarvonshire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 1841 |
| Date | 23 June 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 127
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
[325] the quben against the justices of carnarvonshire. Thursday, November 23d, 1841. Where a notice of ground of appeal, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 81, stated that the removing parish had, during the last six years, man (a) November 5th. Before Lord Denman C.J., Williams, Coleridge, and Wight -d Js. 128 THE QUKEN V. THE JUSTICES OF CARNARVONSHIRE a Q. B. 826. and particularly in 1839 and 1840, relieved the pauper while resident in another parish. Held, a good statement of grounds on the face of it. Though a specific settlement also was imperfectly stated. And, the session having confirmed the order of removal without hearing the appellants, this Court issued a mandamus commanding them to hear. By an order of two justices, the wife and children of David Roberts were removed from the parish of Conway to the pariah of Gitfin, both in Carnarvonshire, upon examinations setting up a settlement of David Roberts in Griffin. Notice of appeal wa served, stating the grounds of appeal as follows. That the said David Roberts, the pauper's husband, ia not legally settled in the appellant parish. That the said D. R. is legally settled in the respondent parish. That the respondent parish have acknowledged the said D. R. to be an inhabitant of, and legally settled in, their parish, by relieving the said D. R., and the said paupers as part of his family, from time to time during the last six years, whilst the said D. R. and the said paupers were resident in other places out of the respondent parish : and particularly by giving relief to the said D. R. and the said paupers as part of his family, several times in the years 1839 and 1840, during which time he and his.faraily were residing in the town of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster. That the said D. R. is settled in the respondent parish by apprenticeship, and served with Robert Hughes, then of the town of Conway, shoemaker, deceased (and referred to in the examination in this case), under a legal indenture of apprenticeship made and executed between the several parties therein named. [326] The appeal coming on to be heard at the Carnarvonshire Quarter Sessions, January 1841, the respondents objected that the statement of grounds of appeal was not sufficiently explicit. The sessions, being of that opinion, refused to hear evidence in support of the appeal, or to allow the appellants to impugn the...
To continue reading
Request your trial