The Queen against The Recorder of Leeds. [in the QUEEN'S BENCH]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1843 |
| Date | 11 May 1843 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 215
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
2Q.B.H8. THE QUEEN V. THE RECORDER OF PONTEFRACT 215 [548] the queen against the recorder of pontefract. [Monday, May 8th, 1843.] The examination transmitted with an order of removal stated a statement by renting a close of land at L. in the county of York, not specifying the landlord's name. The sessions having decided on appeal that such description was insufficient, and thereupon discharged the order without hearing the case farther, this Court refused a mandamus to enter continuances and hear the appeal, though it was stated on affidavit that L, was a small township containing only twenty-five families, and adjoined the township in which the tenant appeared by the examination to have lived at the time of the renting. An examination, stating that the pauper occupied a cottage and land belonging to A.. B. in the appellant parish, at the yearly rent of 91., and a shop at the yearly rent of 11. 11s. 6d., all which premises he occupied for three years, paid the several rents as they became due, and resided the whole time in the cottage, does not shew a renting at 101. for one year and an occupation under such yearly hiring, within stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, s. 2, and will not sustain an order of removal. Pashley, in this term, obtained a rule nisi for a mandamus to the recorder of Pontefract to enter continuances and hear the appeal of the guardian and overseers of already given to-day (p. 541, ante) seems adverse to the respondents, but does not go the length of requiring that the examinations should follow the precise words of stat. 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 7. Here the servant Joseph Sidebottorn appears to have been unmarried at the time of the hiriitg: and from his age and the other circumstances of the case it may reasonably be inferred, though it is not stated, that he bad not been previously married, and had no child or children when hired. Indeed the Court can scarcely expect that the negative on these points should be [547] directly stated. [Patteson J. Could not a witness who had known him for many years affirm directly that he was unmarried and without child or children at a particular time 1] The judgment in Jlegina v. Staple Fitzpaine (ante, p. 488), on the point of emancipation, admits of presumption to some extent from statements not quite express. R. Hall and Pashley, contra, were not heard. Lord Derimao C.J. It is clear that there is a deficiency in these examinations: and it is too much to expect that, after deciding as we did in the case of Begina v. Wymond-ham (p. 541, ante) this morning, we should at half past three pronounce a contrary decision. Patteson and Williams Js. concurred. (Coleridge J. was absent.) Orders quashed. The following case was also decided in this term. The Queen against The Recorder of Leeds. [Thursday, May llth, 1843.] Grounds of appeal, stating a settlement of the pauper by hiring and service, but not that, when hired, he was unmarried and without child or children, Held insufficient, though, by coupling the grounds of appeal with the examination, which was not contradicted, it appeared that the pauper, when hired, was only eleven years old. Two justices made an order (November 24tb, 1842), for removing John Foulstone from the township of Leeds, in the borough of Leeds, to the town, township, &c. of Hemswortb, both in the West Riding of Yorkshire. The order was grounded on the examination, among others, of the pauper, who therein stated that he was thirty-three years old. An appeal, by Hemsworth, against the order, came on to be heard at the Leeds Borough Sessions, February 1843, when the appellants relied on the following ground of appeal. "7th. That the said pauper acquired a settlement in your said township of Leeds in or about the year 1820, by hiring and serving with one Thomas Lancaster of Leeds aforesaid, then a butcher, for a year, and that he served the said Thomas Lancaster in Leeds aforesaid for four years or thereabouts, arid received Is. per week during the whole of such term, and during the whole of such term he resided and slept in the said township of Leeds." The respondents objected to the hearing of evidence on this ground of appeal, because it did not state that the pauper, when hired, was an unmarried person and without child or children. The same objection was taken to the eighth and ninth grounds of appeal, which stated hirings and services in Leeds fifteen and sixteen years back, but with the same omission. The 216 THE QUEEN V. THE RECORDER OF PONTEFRACT 2 Q. B. 549. the poor of the township of Leatbley, in the county of York, against an order of justices removing William Bradley Clapbam to that township from the [549] township of Pontefract, in the borough of Pontefraet, in the same county. The-order was grounded on an examination of the pauper, the material part of which was as follows. "That he" (pauper) "is sixty-three years of age or thereabouts; that examinant's father, Jacob Clapham, late of Leathley, in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial