The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rotherham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 December 1842 |
| Date | 03 December 1842 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 219
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
(a) See the cases in this volume, p. 325 to 334, ante, and from p. 476, ante, to the case in the text. To these may be added the following report (in part) of The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rotherham. [Saturday, December 3d, 1842.] The examination of a pauper, purporting to be taken by the removing justices at S., and to be sworn by " M. V. of S.," stated that M. V. and her children, aged respectively seven and three years, and one year, were then "chargeable to S." Held a sufficient statement that all the paupers were inhabiting in S. at the time of the examination. An order of removal, brought before this Court by certiorari, bearing date September 3d, 1841, recited a complaint by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of Sheffield, that Mary Varley and her three children, viz. &c., had come to inhabit in the township of Sheffield, not having gained a legal settlement, &c., and had become chargeable to the township of Sheffield aforesaid : and it adjudged, in the usual form, that the paupers were settled in Eotherham; ordering their removal from and out of the township of Sheffield to the parish, township, &c., of Rotherham. An examination returned with the order purported to be the examination of " Mary Varley, of the township of Sheffield," widow, taken at Sheffield before the removing justices, on September 3d, 1841. It stated her age, place of birth, and the facts shewing her alleged settlement in Rotherham; her marriage to James Varley, the father of her children, and his death ; and concluded as follows: " And examinant and three children by the said James Varley, viz. Thomas, aged seven years, Jemina, aged three years, and James, aged one year, are poor and chargeable to Sheffield. Mary X Varley her mark." A motion was made to quash this order and an order of sessions confirming it, and a rule nisi was granted. In Michaelmas term, November 12th, 1842, (before Lord Denman C.J., Williams, Coleridge, and Wightman Js.), [568] Pickering shewed cause, and Pashley supported the rule. Several objections to the order were discussed, and overruled, as was also the objection that no statement appeared, in the examinations, of a complaint having been made before the justices. One further objection was disposed of by the Court (after time taken for consideration), as follows. Lord Denman C.J. (The earlier part of the judgment is omitted.) The point for consideration is, whether upon the face of the examination, by fair and reasonable intendment (and by that rule we were desired to consider it), it does not sufficiently appear that the paupers were inhabiting in the removing township at the time of the examination, and of making the order. And first with respect to the mother. She is stated to be " of Sheffield;" and her 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 they would be with the mother for custody and protection, and the more so in this instance, as, from the examination, we find that their father was then dead. As to the eldest (seven years), though the inference may not be so strong, he is nevertheless of an age up to which the period of nurture is considered as extending. This, therefore, with the weight which we have seen attributed to the statement of chargeability, will we think suffice as to him. The rule must therefore be discharged. Kule discharged. The case will be more fully reported in its place.
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 705
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 2 G. & D. 523; 12 L. J. M. C. 17; 6 Jur. 1085.
the queen against the inhabitants of eotherham. Saturday, November 12th, 1842. After appeal against an order of removal, and adjudication thereon at sessions, no case being reserved, the unsuccessful party obtained a certiorari to bring up the order, examination of the pauper, notice of appeal, and order of sessions, and, on the return, moved that the orders might be quashed. Quaere, whether a certiorari ought to have bean granted to bring up the examination and notice of appeal, and whether, being brought up, they could be noticed by the Court, assuming that the sessions had jurisdiction to dispose of the case. The order of removal, addressed " to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the township of Sheffield," recited a complaint made " by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of Sheffield aforesaid," that the paupers had come to inhabit, &c., not having gained a legal settlement, &c,, nor produced a certificate, and had become chargeable to the township of Sheffield aforesaid ; and the justices did "adjudge the same to be true," &c. Held, on the above motion, that the order sufficiently shewed a complaint made by the proper officers of a township maintaining its own poor. Also that the order, which, after the above recital, purported to be made " upon due examination of the premises" "upon oath," was good, though it did not more expressly state an examination into the settlement of the paupers in the appellant parish. And though it directed the overseers of Sheffield absolutely to remove the paupers; riot adding "unless notice of appeal shall be given within twenty-one days," &c., or words equivalent. The pauper's examination, dated on the same day...
To continue reading
Request your trial