The Queen against The Inhabitants of the Borough of Leominster
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1844 |
| Date | 08 February 1844 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 1391
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 3 G. & D. 326; 1 New Sess. Cas. 80; 13 L. J. M. C. 54; 8 Jur. 124.
Q. B-MO- THE QUEEN ('. LEOMINSTER 1391 [640] the queen against the inhabitants of the borough of leominster. Thursday, February 8tb, 1844. A pauper having been removed to pariah A., by an order directed to the churchwardens and overseers of A., notice of appeal and grounds of appeal was served, purporting to be signed by M. "churchwarden," and M. and N. "overseers." M. was the survivor; two churchwardens had been appointed, of whom M. and N. had also been appointed the only overseers; but which appointment took place first did not appear. Held, that the appellants were entitled to be heard, upon this notice. [S. C. 3 G. & D. 326; 1 New Sess. Cas. 80; 13 L. J. M. C. 54; 8 Jur. 124.] On appeal against an order of two justices, removing William Pierce, otherwise Loveridge, and Mary his wife, from the borough of Leominater in Herefordshire to the parish of Addington in Buckinghamshire, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. At the trial, the appellants being called upon to prove their notice of appeal, it appeared that a notice and statement of grounds of appeal had been served upon the officers of the respondent parish fourteen clear days at least before the sessions. The case then aet out the document containing the notice and grounds, which was dated llth March 1843, and commenced "to the churchwardens," &c. "We, the church wardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Addington," &c., and was signed as follows. " john clare, Churchwarden. " john clare, ~\n , ., -a -matthew adams,}verseersof the Poor' At the time of the said notice and statement of grounds of appeal being signed and given, the persons whose signatures are affixed thereto were the only existing S menial officers of the appellant parish, whether churchwardens or overseers. John are, who signed the above notice and statement of grounds of appeal as churchwarden, was the same person who also signed it as one of the overseers. Clare and Adams, by whom [641] the said notice and statement of grounds of appeal is signed, were in fact appointed overseers of the appellant parish in the year 1842, Clare was one of the churchwardens of the appellant parish, and continued to he such churchwarden until after the giving of the said statement of grounds of appeal, and the trial of the aaid appeal. There had been another person appointed churchwarden, as well as Clare; but that person had died in October 1842, before the time at which the said notice of appeal was given ; and no successor to the deceased churchwarden had been appointed. It was objected by the respondents that, under the circumstances, the appellants could not be heard in support of their appeal, inasmuch as the said John Clare and Matthew Adams, by whom the said notice of appeal was signed, did not, at the time of signing the said notice, legally constitute either the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, or the churchwarden or the overseers of the poor, of the appellant parish; and because, at the time of giving the said notice of appeal, there was no body of churchwardens or of overseers of the poor of the appellant parish, legally constituted in that behalf, and competent to give the said notice of appeal, or any other notice of appeal, against the said order of removal; and also because a statement of the grounds of appeal in writing hail not been sent or delivered to the churchwardens and overseers of the respondent parish by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the appellant parish, inasmuch as the said John Clare and Matthew Adams, by whom the said statement was sent or delivered to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the respondent parish, were not, for that purpose, the legally constituted churchwardens and over-[642]-seers of the appellant parish, or a majority thereof: aud because, at the time at which the said statement of the grounds of appeal was so sent or delivered as aforesaid, there was no body of churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the appellant parish legally constituted in that behalf, and competent to send or deliver to the churchwardens and overaeers of the respondent parish the said statement of grounds of appeal, or any other statement of grounds of appeal, against the said order of removal. Upon the above objections, the Court of Quarter Sessions decided that the appellants were entitled to be heard in support of the appeal, and proceeded to try the same, and quashed the order oi removal. 1392 THE QUEEN V. LEOMINSTER B Q. B. 4S. If this Court should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial