The Queen against The Inhabitants of Rishworth
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1842 |
| Date | 22 January 1842 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 114 E.R. 187
IN THE QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 G. & D. 597; 11 L. J. M. C. 34.
[476] the queen against the inhabitants of eishworth. Saturday, January 22d, 1842. The examinations, transmitted with the copy of an order of removal, must, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 81, shew proper grounds of removal, proved by legal evidence. Therefore, where the only examination transmitted was that of the pauper, who said, " I am twenty-eight years of age, and was born illegitimate at S.," and it was objected, on appeal, that the examination was insufficient, as furnishing no legal evidence of a birth settlement, and the sessions 188 THE QUEEN V. RISHWORTH a Q. B. 477. thereupon refused to hear witnesses in support of the removal, and quashed the order; thig Court confirmed the order of sessions. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 597; 11 L. J. M. C. 34.] On appeal against an order of two justices for removing Elizabeth Bottomley, and James and John her children, from the township of Rishworth in the West Biding of Yorkshire to the parish, township, or place of Stayley in the county of Chester, the sessions discharged the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. The order appealed against was made out on the examination of the pauper, which was as follows. " The examination of Elizabeth Bottomley, now residing iu the Halifax Union Workhouse," &c., "who saith : I am twenty eight years of age, and was born illegitimate at Stayley in Cheshire. About four months ago I was removed by an order from Stayley to the township of Rishworth; which order I have been informed and believe has been withdrawn by the overseer of Stayley aforesaid, the overseer of Rishworth having given notice of appeal. I never did any act to gain a settlement, and am now, with my two illegitimate children, chargeable to the township of Rishworth." Two of the grounds of appeal were stated as follows. That no legal evidence of a birth settlement in our township of Stayley is disclosed in the examination of Elizabeth Bottomley upon which the said order is founded, such evidence being only hearsay. And that the said order of removal, and examination on which the same was made, are bad upon the faces thereof. There [477] were other grounds of appeal which had not reference to the evidence of a birth settlement in Stayley. On the hearing of the appeal the respondents' counsel stated, in opening their case, that evidence would be given to Elizabeth Bottomley having been born illegitimate in the township of Stayley. The counsel for the appellants objected that the examination of the pauper, whereon alone the order of removal had been made, disclosed no legal evidence, and was not sufficient to let the respondents into any evidence, of the pauper having been born illegitimate in the said township of Stayley, or any other settlement of the pauper in the said township. The question of the admissibility of such evidence was then argued: and the Court thereupon decided that the examination on which the order had beeti made was not sufficient to let the respondents into giving such evidence. The question for the Court of Queen's Bench was : whether the said examination of the pauper was sufficient to let the respondents into evidence of the pauper having been born illegitimate in Stayley, or of any other settlement of the pauper in that township. If the Conrt should be of opinion that the examination was sufficient to let the respondents into such evidence, the appeal was to be reheard. Wortley and Monteith in support of the order of sessions. It was necessary, to authorize the order of removal, that the justices should have 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 order would be vitiated : but here all the evidence material to the settlement is bad. The pauper says, " I am twenty-eight years of age, and was born illegitimate at Stayley." She could know these facts only from hearsay ; and that, as to the place of birth and the illegitimacy, would be no evidence. Her own recollection could not carry the case farther; for, in Hex v. Trowbridge (7 B. & C. 252), Bayley J. says: " The mere fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial