The Queen against William West, one of the Proprietors of the Leeds and Selby Railway
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1841 |
| Date | 29 May 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 1348
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 1 G. & D. 481; 2 Railw. Cas. 613; 5 Jur. 484.
the queen against the inhabitants of east ville. Saturday, May 29th, 1841. The examination of a pauper stated facts tending to shew general admissions of a settlement by the appellant parish: the notice of objections denied the fact of any such settlement and the fact of the admissions. On the appeal, the sessions admitted evidence by the respondents of a settlement in the appellant parish by hiring and service : and confirmed the order of removal. Held, that such evidence was inadmissible, under stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 81 : and this Court quashed the order of sessions. On appeal against an order of justices, removing Sarah, the wife of William Thirsting, from the parish of Friskney to the township of East Ville (both in the parts (a) Other objections were discussed; but the report is confined to that on which alone the Court decided. (b) Sir F. Pollock was proceeding to address the Court on the same side; but Lord Denman C.J. stated that the case was heard on concilium, referring to Regina v. Brmmlmir, 11 A. & E. 119. See p. 125. 1Q. B.8M. THE QUEEN V. EAST VILLE 1349 of Lindsey, in the county of Lincoln), the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court ou the following case. In the examination of the pauper, on which the order of removal was founded, she stated as follows. "My husband, William Thirsting, absconded and left me in the parish of Friskney, about seventeen weeks ago. I have often heard my husband say that his place of settlement was in East Ville, in the said parts. I have received, within the last year, from Mr. Kent, of East Ville, a Christmas box, which is given to the poor persons that belong to their parish : and Mr. Tristing and Mr. Clater, charge bearers and inhabitants of East Ville, told me that we, meaning myself and husband, belonged to their parish: and Mr. Tristing said they had taken my husband before without any order." I am now chargeable to the parish of Friskney." [829] The statement of the grounds of appeal was as follows. That the said William Thirsting's settlement is not in the said parish of East Ville, as stated in the examination of the said Sarah Thirsting. That the said Sarah Thirsting did not receive relief from the inhabitants of East Ville, as a poor person belonging thereto...
To continue reading
Request your trial