The Queen against The Justices of Cambridgeshire. The Queen against The Justices of Shropshire. The Queen against The Justices of Gloucestershire
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 551
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[480] The following cases, decided in Michaelmas vacation, 1838, may conveniently be added here. the queen against the justices op cambridgeshire. the queen against the justices of shropshire. the queen against the justices of gloucestershire. 1838. A notice of application for an order of maintenance on the putative father of a bastard, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 73, must be signed by a majority of the aggregate body of churchwardens and overseers ; therefore such a notice, signed only by two overseers of a parish, which has also two churchwardens, is bad. Where such parish forms part of a union, quaere, what officers should make such application and sign such notice1? Per Lord Deuraan C.J. The requisite number of officers must actually sign such notice. In the first of these cases a rule nisi had been obtained for a mandamus to the justices of Cambridgeshire to receive and hear the application of the inhabitants of Willingham, Cambridgeshire, for an order upon Joshua Elwood, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 72. The parish of Willingham had applied at the October Quarter Sessions, 1836, for an order to be made on Elwood, pursuant to the above clause, to reimburse the said parish for the maintenance and support of a bastard child, of which he was charged to be the father. The notice of application served on Elwood was signed by John Smith and George Read, who therein stated them-selvea to be (and who were) the overseers of the poor of the said parish. The parish had also two churchwardens, acting aa such, who had not signed the notice ; and on this ground it was objected at the sessions, by Elwood's counsel, that [481] the notice was insufficient. The justices held accordingly, and dismissed the application. In Michaelmas term, 1837 (a), Gunning shewed cause. Under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 73, the churchwardens as well as the overseers ought to sign the notice. By sect. 72, when a bastard child, shall become chargeable to any parish, as there mentioned, " the overseers or guardians of such parish, or the guardians of any union in which such parish may be situate, may, if they think proper, after diligent inquiry as to the father of such child, apply to the next General Quarter Sessions," &c., for an order on the putative father for its maintenance. By sect. 73, " No such application shall be heard at such sessions unless fourteen days' notice shall have been given under the hands of such overseers or guardians to the person intended to be charged with being the father of such child of such intended application :" and, if the order is refused, the costs of the person intended to be charged are to be " paid by such overseers or guardians." And by the interpretation clause, sect. 109, "the word 'overseer' shall be construed to mean and include overseers of the poor, churchwardens, so far as they are authorised or required by law to act in the management or relief of the poor, or in the collection or distribution of the poor-rate, assistant overseer, or any other subordinate officer, whether paid or unpaid, in any parish or union, who shall be employed therein in carrying this Act or the laws for the relief of the poor into execution." Under sect. 72 a discretion is to be exercised, and, by sect. 73, [482] a risk of coats is incurred; the proceeding, therefore, ought not to be undertaken without the concurrence of all, or at least a majority, of the officers authorised by the Act. Stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, makes the (a) November 13th. Before Lord Denman C.J., Patteson, Williams, and Coleridge Js. 552 THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF SHROPSHIRE 7 AD. & E. 483. churchwardens, as well as the four, three, or two substantial householders, to be nominated as there mentioned, overseers of the poor; and stat. 13 & 14 Car. 2, e. 12, s, 19, makes it lawful for the "churchwardens and overseers," in the cases of bastardy there mentioned, to seize the goods of the putative father. The forms of proceedings under this statute and stats. 18 Eliz. c. 3, and 49 G. 3, c. 68, in Burn's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Brown v Brook
-
The Queen on the Prosecution of Wray v the Governors of the Darlington Free Grammar School
...v. Bellringer (4 T. R 810); Bex v. Miller (6 T. R. 268); Blacket v. Blizard (9 B. & C. 851); Begina v. The Justices of Cambridgeshire (7 A. & E. 480); Bex v. Grimes (5 Burr. 2598); Littledale J, in Lucas v. Nockells (10 Bing. 157, 186). Cur. adv. vult. Lord Denman C.J., in Hilary vacation, ......
-
Burges v Boetefeur and Brown
...by a judgment; the object of the statute being that the nuisance complained of should be (a) See Meyina v. Justices of Cambridgeshire, 7 A. & E. 480. 204 : BURGESS V. BOETEFEUR 7 MAN. & G. 608. abated ; and it is upon proving such a result that the inhabitants are to be entitled to the spec......
-
Doe on the Several demises of Graves and Lowne against Wells and Trowbridge
...The several demises were alleged in the declaration to have been made on 17th October 1836, habendum for seven years, from (a)1 7 A. & E. 480. See the judgment, ibid. 490. (a)3 See 2 & 3 Viet. c. 85, and Regina v. The Justices of Wilts, post, sittings in Baac. after M. t. 1840. 10AE.&E.U8. ......