« PreviousContinue »
Seward, Atkins v.
269 Smith, Doe dem. Earl of
Symonds, Saunderson v.
Willis v. Peckham
Wyke, Howell v.
33. of the marginal note, dele “covenant.'
441. 32. dele from “ Besides” to “statute" in line 34 of the
In the Fifty-ninth Year of the Reign of George III.
WATKINS v. Hewlett.
THIS THIS was an action for money lent, money had and A receipt for received, and on the other money counts; and a promissory
note, expressupon the trial of the cause at Guildhall, at the sittings ing a proafter Hilary term, 1819, before Dallas C. J., it ap- spective and peared, that the Plaintiff having been charged as the executory conputative father of a child, wherewith a pauper of the which the moparish of Horfield was pregnant, and which was likely ney thereby
secured is to to be born a bastard, and to be chargeable to the be paid, may
be given in evidence as a receipt on a receipt stamp, and does not require an agreement stamp, as evidence of a contract.
If the putative father of a bastard, pay, before its birth, a fixed sum to the parish officers to discharge him of all future responsibility for the maintenance of the child, after the birth and death of the child he may recover back such part of the money as remains unexpended, as had and received to his use.
parish, gave the Defendant, who was then a parish officer of Horfield, his promissory note for 35l., upon which the Defendant gave him a receipt, upon the appropriate receipt stamp, expressing, that the Defendant had “ received of the Plaintiff, a bill at two months, for 351., which, when paid, would discharge him from the expences of an illegitimate child, which was likely to become chargeable to the Defendant's parish.” The Defendant negotiated this note, and received thereon the sum therein specified, and the note, when due, was paid by the Plaintiff. The child was born a bastard, and died a few days after its birth, and there was no distinct evidence, that any part of the 35l. was expended by the parish, on its birth, maintenance, or burial. The Plaintiff now sued to recover the residue as money had and received to his use, upon the authority of Stainforth v. Staggs (a), and the King v. Martin. (6) Hullock Serjt. for the Defendant, contended, that the receipt offered in evidence, was offered as proof of a contract which subsisted between the parties, stipulating the terms on which the sum of 35l. was paid; and that whether the paper itself contained the contract, or were only evidence of the contract, the subsisting stamp act (c), required that it should bear an agreement stamp. Dallas C. J. was of opinion, that the evidence was admissible, but reserved the objection; and there being no proof of any money expended on the infant, a verdict passed for the Plaintiff for 35l., with liberty to the Defendant to move to enter a nonsuit, if the evidence had been improperly admitted.
Hullock Serjt. now moved to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit; he admitted, that after the cases