The Queen against The Inhabitants of Stainforth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Date | 01 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 399
QUEENS BENCH
S. C. 3 New Sess. Cas. 53; 17 L. J. M. C. 25; 12 Jur. 95.
11 Q. B.86. THE QUEEN V. STATNFORTH 399 the queen against the inhabitants of stainforth. 1845. A binding of a parish apprentice by a churchwarden and one of two overseers of a township is good. The recital in a parish indenture of an order for binding is sufficient primary evidence before removing justices that such order was made. An indenture, produced before removing justices, had at the foot an allowance by C. and L., "justices of the peace for the West Riding." The order for binding, as recited in the indenture, appeared to be "made by" C. and L. (the same names), "justices of the peace in and for the said riding." Held, that the allowance was sufficient: inasmuch as such allowance is merely an act personal to the magistrates, and the place where it is signed need not appear on the instrument. [S. C. 3 New Sess. Gas. 53; 17 L. J. M. C. 25; 12 Jur. 95.] On appeal against an order of justices for the removal of William Moore hia wife and their three children from the township of Staiuforth to the township of, stated a residence during the service: and it appeared, by another examination, that Spence was unmarried, &c., when hired. John Robson deposed : " I am colliery viewer for the Marquis of Londonderry, at Rainton Colliery ; I produce the pit bond by which the Marquis of L. hired hia pitman for Rainton Colliery for the year commencing the 5th of April 1829. It is dated the 21st day of March 1029, and is made between the marquis of the one part, and the several persons who were hired, of the other part; and the several persons who were hired are thereby hired to the said marquis for one year from the 5th day of April 1829. Robert Spence, the late husband of the above named Elizabeth Spence, was thereby hired to the said marquis for one year, as a hewer. I have brought the said bond from Rainton Colliery office, where it is kept with other documents relating to that colliery." George Spence, brother of Robert, deposed : " I was present when ray said brother was hired to the Marquis of Londonderry, the owner of Rainton Colliery, for one year from the 5th day of April 1829, as a hewer. I was bound as a hewer at the same time. I saw my brother set his mark to the pit bond by which he was bound. The mark now shewn to me on the bond now produced is my brother's mark. My said brother, under that hiring, duly served the said marquis as a hewer at Rainton Colliery for one whole year." The following grounds of appeal, among others, were stated. Fifthly : That there were no such binding, &c., and no such residence, &c., as alleged in the examinations. Seventhly ; That the alleged hiring was exceptive. Eighthly : That it was conditional, and there was no sufficient service under it. Ninthly: That the justices admitted improper and insufficient evidence of the agreement or pit bond, and of its execution by Robert Spence. Tenthly : That the examinations are imperfect and defective in not setting forth a copy of the agreement or pit bond. Eleventhly : That either the examinations should have set forth such copy, or the churchwardens and overseers of East Rainton should have been served with a copy at the time when they were served with a copy of the examinations. Twelfthly : That the appellants have not been served with a copy of all the examinations, &c., and of the whole of the evidence given before the removing justices. " At the trial of the appeal, the respondents gave in evidence a memorandum of agreement^ usually called a pit bond, dated the 21st of March 1829, made between the Marquis of Londonderry, owner of Rainton Colliery, of the one part, and the several other persons whose names or marks were thereunto subscribed, amongst whom was the said It. Spence, deceased, of the other part; whereby," &c. The case then set out some parts of the deed, including several conditions to be observed by the pitmen, and raising the points taken by the 7th and 8th grounds of appeal. [64] Spence was proved to have worked at the colliery under this bond for a whole year (with exceptions not now material), and to have resided more than forty days, &c. After the service of the grounds of appeal, but previous to the trial of the appeal, a copy of the bond was furnished to the overseers of the appellant township. If this Court should be of opinion against the appellants on the different points raised by the grounds of appeal, the order was to he confirmed ; but, in case the Court 400 THE QUERN V. STArNFORTH 11 Q. B. 66. Kirkby Malbam, both in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the sessions discharged the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The examinations on which the order was made, so far as they are now material, were as follows. should be of opinion in favour of the appellants on any one or more of the said points, then to be quashed. Otter, in support or the order of sessions. It is not necessary that all documents produced before the removing justices should have been sent by respondents to apel-lants. 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 words of the Act extend to documentary evidence, they must at least be confined to such evidence of that kind as the respondents have in their power. [Wightman J. No difficulty is stated here ; and you did at last send a copy.] A pauper may have become settled by an estate which he has since sold : the title deeds may be produced before the removing justices; but yet no one interested in taking a copy may have controul over them for that purpose. [Coleridge J. You say " examination," in sect. 79, means the oral evidence, and such documents as the removing parish has a controul over.] In this particular case, the document has been sent; and there is no authority for saying that it is not sent in time : but it is unnecessary to rely on this. The sessions have confirmed the order, and thereby decided that proper information was sent. [Coleridge J, But they decide, subject to a case.] Suppose the appellants had admitted that a document, purporting to be a copy, was sent, but stated as ground of appeal that the copy was not a true one : that would have been a question of fact, and one of which the sessions only could be the Judges. The case here is, in effect, the same. The examinations describe the contents of the bond : and there is no evidence, nor do the sessions find, that the description is not true. It was a question of particularity, and therefore rested with them. [Patteson J. The case finds that the deed contained a number of conditions. Lord Denman C.J. If the sessions had found that any thing transmitted waa a copy, perhaps we should not interfere. But nothing like that is done. Patteson J. Where do you say the copy begins, in the examinations?] Otter read the examination of John Robsori. [Patteson J. That is not a copy.] Granger, contra, was not heard. [65] Lord Denman C.J. The case is free from all doubt. Patteson J. concurred. Coleridge J. Your case goes no farther than an excuse for not sending a copy with the examinations; and that is not made out...
To continue reading
Request your trial