The Queen against The Inhabitants of Lydeard St. Lawrence
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 June 1841 |
| Date | 14 June 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 547
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 1 G. & D. 191; 10 L. J. M. C. 147; 6 Jur. 32.
[616] the queen against the inhabitants of lydeard st. lawrence (a)2. [Monday, June 14th, 1841.] 1. Under sect. 81 of stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76 (precluding respondents from going into other grounds of removal than those set forth in the order and examination), the sessions must reject evidence of any grounds of removal which do not appear, on the face of the examination, to have (a)1 Later on the same day (April 17tb) the case of The Queen against Tetbury was decided by the Court (in the absence of Wightman J.) on the same ground as the above. The settlement relied upon was shewn only by hearsay evidence on the face of the examinations; and the notice of appeal specified, as one of the grounds, that the examination did not contain sufficient evidence of the settlement, &c. An attempt was made to distinguish the case from Regina v. Ecclesall Bierlow; but the Court held it to be governed by that case. In the course of the argument Lord Denman C.J. observed, " We have not said that the admission of some improper evidence will be a ground for quashing an order: I should be slow to hold that."-S. See, on this last point, as to a trial at Nisi Prius, Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & E. 919; S. C. 5 Tyrwh. 458; De Rutzen v. Fan, 4 A. & E. 53; Wright v. Doe dem. Tatham, 7 A. & E. 313. In Bex v. Luffe, 8 East, 193, in the case of an order of filiation, where it was objected that the order shewed that a wife had been allowed to prove non-access, Lord Ellenborough says, "It does not appear to what particular facts the wife deposed, or what were proved by the other evidence : and then the rule laid down in The King v. Bedatt" (Ca. K. B. temp. Hard. 379) "applies, that if there were other witnesses besides the wife, and she were competent to prove any part of the case, the Court will intend, in support of an order framed like the present, that she was examined only as to those facts which she was competent to prove, and that the rest of the case was proved by the other evidence." Lawrence J. said, "Suppose it had been stated in express terms, that the wife had given evidence of the non-access, and that the same fact had been proved by other witnesses, we should presume in the case of an order that the magistrates had proceeded upon the evidence of the other witnesses as to that fact." Le Blanc J. appears to take the same view as Lawrence J. And see Page J. in Rex v. Bedall, Ca. K. B. temp. Hard. 379. As to appeals at sessions, see the language of Lord Kenyon in Bex v. Eriswell, 3 T. E. 724, and of Lee C.J. in Rex v. Coin St. Aldwin's, Bur. S. C. 136. See the next case. (a)2 See p. 607, ante. 548 THE QUEEN V. LYDEARD ST. LA WHENCE 11 AD. tc E. 817. been proved before the removing justices by some legal evidence; provided the defect of evidence be pointed out by the notice of objections. Thua, where a birth settlement of pauper's husband was proved only by the husband stating that be was born in the appellant parish " as I bave heard and believe," and the objection was that it was not proved or set forth " upon oath of any credible witness" when or where the husband was born, this Court held that the evidence of the birth was merely hearsay, the objection sufficiently taken, and all evidence of the birth inadmissible at sessions. Although it appeared, in the examination, that the husband, when examined, was " confined in W. gaol for felony;" and the respondents contended that the objection pointed only to the inadmissibility of a convicted felon. 2. An examination stated an apprenticeship, and a service in the appellant parish with a party other than the master; but did not state the master's consent. Held, that the examination was bad on the face of it, so far as regarded a settlement by apprenticeship. Although the examinant (the apprentice) stated that it was agreed, in the indenture, that he should serve the last forty days of his apprenticeship in L., the appellant parish, "and I served the last forty days" in L., "with A. H. my master's father." Held also, that the objection was sufficiently taken by objecting that it did not appear that the examinant served A. H. with the consent of the master, or in any other manner, under any indenture of apprenticeship, alleging some additional defects, and then proceeding thus,-"And the said examinations are too general, and are wanting in sufficient particularity, in each of these last-mentioned respects." 3. Semble, per Patteson J., that, where the settlement relied on is a derivative one from the pauper's father, whose alleged settlement is by apprenticeship, the examination should give the date of the apprenticeship. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 191; 10 L. J. M. C. 147 ; 6 Jur. 32.] On appeal against an order of two justices, removing Elizabeth Winter from the parish of Spaxton, in Somersetshire, to the parish of Lydeard St. Lawrence, in the same county, as the place of the last legal settlement of William Winter, the husband of Elizabeth, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The examinations of William Winter the Younger, the pauper's husband, and William Winter his father, upon which the order of removal was made, were as follows. "The examination of William Winter, now confined in Wilton gaol, in the said county, for felony. Taken," &c. "I am about twenty-five years old. I was born [617] in the parish of Lydeard St. Lawrence, as I have heard and believe : I have done no act whei eby to gain a legal settlement on my own account. About January last I was removed, by an order of removal, from the parish of North Cadbury, in the said county, to the parish of Lydeard St. Lawrence, in the said county, the last legal place of settlement of my father William Winter, as I have heard and believe. I have a wife," &c. "The examination of William Winter, now residing," &c., "as to the settlement of his son William Winter; who saith as follows. My son, W. W., hath not, to the best of my knowledge and belief, gained any legal place of settlement on his own account. My parents were legally settled, as I have heard and believe, in the parish of Lydeard St. Lawrence. I was born in the parish of Lydeard St. Lawrence, as I have heard and believe (a). I was bound apprentice by indenture with John Hurley of Fitzhead, shoemaker; but it was agreed, in the indenture of apprenticeship, that I should serve the last forty days of my apprenticeship in the parish of L. St. L. : and I served the last forty days of my apprenticeship in L. St. L., with Aaron Hurley, my master's father. I have had relief from the overseers of L. St. L. My son W. W. was removed in January last, by an order of removal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rishworth
...had legal evidence of the facta stated in the examination ; Begina v. Ecclesall Bierlow (11 A. & E. 607), Kegina v. Lydeard St. Lawrence (11 A. & E. 616). In [478] Regina v. Tetbury (11 A. & E. 615, note (a)), Lord Denman C. J. declined to say that if some bad evidence had been received the......
-
The Queen against The Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire. (Longwood against Halifax.)
...If the defect can be cured, the respondents can abandon their order, and make another : " and again, in Eegina v. Lydeard St. Lawrence (11 A. & E. 616, 627), "The examinations here are open to many objections: and the notice sufficiently draws the attention of the respondents to them. The r......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of North Bovey
...settlement, were, as here, only stated to have taken place subsequently to the other settlement. In Regina, v. Lydeard St. Lawrence (11 A. & E. 616, 628), Patteson J. points out the impropriety of withholding the date. Secondly, it is not stated that the hiring or service was for a year. Th......
-
The Queen against The Inhabitants of St. Thomas, New Sarum
...argument to stop? Surprise was felt at the decisions in Regina v. Ecdesall Bierlow (11 A. & E. 607), and Regina v. Lydeard St. Lawrence (11 A. & E. 616): and these cases have unquestionably led to consequences which have been lamented, and which it has been often proposed to obviate by expr......