Page images
PDF
EPUB

by the Sessions. As to the question raised by the case, it turns wholly upon the meaning of certain words in the examination; no decisions touch it at all. The question is, what is the meaning of the examination ? It states, “ I was removed by an order of removal," which could not be relied upon, because it was not produced, and no reason given for its non-production; but it states the fact of removal ; and the parish officer of Newland swears that he delivered her to the overseer of the parish of Hartpury with a paper. Then the examination proceeds, “I returned to the parish of Newland, and while there I received monthly relief from Hartpury aforesaid ;” and could any man living doubt that that Hartpury must mean the person entitled to give relief on behalf of the parish of Hartpury? If fifty cases were cited, they could have no bearing upon this.

WIGHTMAN, J. concurred.

Erle, J.-I think that this examination was intended to express the receipt of parochial relief; and that it would be universally so understood. add that the language of examinations in support of orders under the Poor Law has the same meaning as the same language in other documents; and as to the contention of the appellants, it seems to me that they would rest the decision rather upon a perversion of words than the proof of facts.

Rule discharged.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
Wednesday, February 10, and Thursday, June 10, 1847.

THE QUEEN v. THE INHABITANTS OF CRONDALL.
Order of removal-Copy of examinationsWhat to be sent- Stat. 4 8 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, 8. 79-

Relief given by order of board of guardians as evidence against a particular parish. Whatever really forms part of the proceedings before removing justices ought to be transmitted titk

the order of removal to the appellant parish; but where it appeared that examinations were takes by removing justices on two separate days ; that on the first day the pauper was sworn, and made a statement in the presence of the justices, which was taken down in writing ; that that statement was produced on the trial of the appeal, and appeared not to be formally drawn as an examination, and to have upon it memoranda by the attorney of the respondents, but to correspond very nearly in substance with the examination of the pauper, which was taken on the second day, formally drawn up, and sent to the appellant parish, the Court held that the statement made on the first

day was not an examination upon which the order was made, and therefore need not be sent. Where application has been made for relief by a pauper living out of the union to the relieving officer

of a union, and he has brought that application before the board of guardians, and they have ordered the relief to be given on account of the parish alleged to be chargeable, and it has been given by the relieving officer, there is evidence of acknowledgment of the pauper's settlement by the particular parish. The weight to be given to such evidence is solely a question for the Court of Quarter Sessions. PON appeal against an order of two justices for the removal of Martha

Croucher and her eight children from the parish of Elstead, in the county of Surrey, to the parish of Crondall, in the county of Hants, the Quarter Sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case.

The examinations material to the present case, of which copies were sent with the order of removal, as those upon which the order of removal was made, were as follow : “ Surrey, The examination of Martha Croucher, lately residing in the to wit.

parish of Elstead, in the county of Surrey, and now an inmate of the workhouse of the Hambledon Union, in the said county, widow, touching the place of her settlement and the settlement of her eight children, taken upon oath before us, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the

UPC

}

said county of Surrey, the 6th day of March, 1845:-- I am about thirtyeight years of age, and am the widow of James Croucher, late of the parish of Elstead, in the said county of Surrey, deceased. I was married to my said late husband at the parish church of Crondall, in the county of Hants, in the month of January, 1826, and I and my said husband constantly resided at Crookham, in the parish of Crondall aforesaid, from the time of our marriage until the latter part of the year 1837. While we lived at Crookham aforesaid, namely from the beginning of the year 1831 to the latter part of the year 1834, my late husband also hired and rented a house and garden of Mr. Hawkins, situate in Crookham-street, in the parish of Crondall aforesaid, by the year, at the yearly rent of 77. at the least, and at the same time my late husband also hired and rented part of a field of land of Samuel Wooldridge and his father, also situate in the said parish of Crondall, by the year, at the yearly rent of, I believe, 31. 10s. My husband held both the house and garden and the land from Michaelmas, 1831, to Michaelmas, 1832, under such yearly hiring. Mr. Hawkins's house was a separate and distinct dwelling-house, and was, with the garden, solely occupied by my late husband, and during the whole time we lived in it, my husband carried on a chandler's shop there, which was given up when we left it. During the time my husband held the house and garden and land, rented of Hawkins and Wooldridge, he actually occupied each of them, under such respective yearly hiring. He so occupied the house and garden and land, from Michaelmas, 1831, to Michaelmas, 1832, for one whole year, and during that year he resided in the said house forty days and upwards, and did not during that year reside as much as forty days and nights in any other parish. During the time I and my said husband lived at Crookham aforesaid, we were several times relieved during the winter months by the parish of Crondall with an allowance of bread, and I and my children were once relieved by being taken into the union house of the Hartley Wintney Union, of which union the parish of Crondall aforesaid was then and is now part, where we remained six or seven days, without any endeavour to remove my husband and family to another parish. I have by my said husband eight children, who are with me in the workhouse of the Hambledon Union ; namely, James, aged about eighteen years ; John, aged about sixteen years; Martha, aged about fifteen years; William, aged about twelve years ; Mary, aged eleven years; Ann, aged nine years; Jane, aged seven years, and upwards ; and Charles, aged three years, or thereabouts, all of whom were born in lawful wedlock, and during the time I and my said husband lived at Crookham aforesaid, excepting Charles, who was born in the parish of Elstead, in the said county of Surrey. In the year 1838, my husband went to live in the said parish of Elstead; he was taken ill and unable to work ; this was in the latter end of the year 1839, or the beginning of the year 1840. In consequence I applied to Mr. Lodge, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Chandler, of Crondall parish, for relief. They told me I must apply to the parish where I lived, and that they must settle it with that parish. I accordingly applied to Mr. George Woods, the relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, and he relieved my husband several times during his illness with money. My husband died in the month of June last ; at the time of his death he and his family were living in Elstead parish. Very soon after his death I applied to the overseers of Elstead for relief. I was at first relieved by them with money and bread, afterwards was removed with my said children from Elstcad parish, in which we were then living, to the poor-house of the Hambledon Union, where we are now supported at the expense of Elstead parishi, which forms part of the Hambledon Union. I continued to reside with my said children in the parish of Elstead, from the time of my husband's death till we were removed to the Hambledon Union house. None of my said children have gained a settlement in his or her own right.

The examination of Samuel Andrews was as follows:-" I am one of the relieving officers of the Hartley Wintney Union, in the county of Southampton. The parish of Crondall forms part of the said union, and is situate in the district of the said union to which I am the relieving officer. I produce a letter hereto annexed which I received from George Woods, the relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, in the county of Surrey, containing an account of the relief given by him to James Croucher and his family, amounting to A. 2s. 9d., whilst resident in the parish of Elstead, in the said county of Surrey, and an application for payment of the amount. In consequence I made a report of the application to the board of guardians of the Hartley Wintney Union. I produce the application and report-book for my district of the said Hartley Wintney Union, commencing the 25th day of December, 1836, and ending the 25th day of December, 1840. This book contains an entry of the application by James Croucher for relief, and an order for payment of the said sum of 21. 2s. 9d. made the 27th of March, 1840, and signed with the initials of James Brooks, the clerk of the guardians of the said union. I also produce the weekly outdoor relief list of my district of the said Hartley Wintney Union, commencing 25th of December, 1838, and ending June 24th, 1840.' This book contains an entry for the quarter ending June 24th, 1840, of the payment to James Croucher, his wife, and seven children, of the said sum of 21. 2s. 9d. I inclosed the said sum of A1. 2s. 9d. for the amount of relief given by the said George Woods to the said James Croucher and his family, in a letter addressed to Mr. Woodward, by mistake for Mr. Woods, relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, dated the 14th day of May, 1840. The relief so given the said James Croucher is charged in the said out-door relief list to the said parish of Crondall.”

Copy of letter referred to :

“Mr. Samuel Andrews, relieving officer, Odiham, Hants.—Sir,—Inclosed you will find the particulars of James Croucher and his family, also the amount of relief given to him and his family during his illness. He has gone to his work to-day, and I hope will be able to continue to do so; if not, I will pay him according to the directions of our board, as I have hitherto done, and acquaint you with it. I will thank you to remit the money to me as early as convenient; by so doing you will much oblige

(Signed) “ GEORGE Woods, R. O. “ Relief given to James Croucher, 21. 2s. 9d."

The examination of George Woods was as follows :-" I was relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, in the county of Surrey, in the year 1839, and the beginning of the year 1840. I was applied to by Martha Croucher to relieve her husband James Croucher, who she said was ill. I went to see him, and gave him temporary relief. He was at this time living in the parish of Elstead, in the county of Surrey. James Croucher stated that Crondall, in the county of Hants, was his parish. I reported the circumstance to the board of guardians of the Hambledon Union, and was ordered by the board to relieve the pauper James Croucher during his illness, and charge such relief to the parish of Crondall, in the Hartley Wintney Union, Hants. I accordingly relieved the said James Croucher during his illness, and sent an account of such relief in a letter to Mr. Andrews, of Odiham, one of the relieving officers of the Hartley Wintney Union, who sent me the amount thereof inclosed in the annexed letter. This was, I think, the first letter I received from him, and was in answer to my application for the repayment of the relief afforded to James Croucher and his family. I have received other letters since the above, in the same handwriting, in answer to letters which I have addressed to him, “Mr. Andrews, relieving officer, Odiham. I kept no copy of the account or the letter I sent to Mr. Andrews, nor do I now know the amount of the account. The parish of Crondall forms part of the Hartley Wintney Union."

Copy of letter referred to :-
“ To Mr. Woodward, relieving officer, Chiddingfold.

“ Odiham, May 14, 1840. “Sir,— The 'inclosed I hope you will find correct for cash advanced to James Croucher and family, for which we feel much obliged for your trouble.

(Signed) “ S. ANDREWS, R. O." The examination of James Brooks.—“ I am the clerk to the board of guardians of the Hartley Wintney Union, in the county of Southampton. The parish of Crondall, in the said county of Southampton, forms part of this union. I produce the abstract of the application and report-book of the said union, commencing March 25th, 1838, and ending the 24th day of June, 1840. In

page 125 of this book is an entry of the allowance of the sum of A1. 2s. 9d. to be paid by Samuel Andrews, the relieving officer of the Hartley Wintney Union, for relief to James Croucher, his wife, and seven children, during illness. The entry is signed with the initials of the Honourable T. G. Calthorpe, the presiding guardian of the said union. The application and report-book of the said Samuel Andrews, one of the relieving officers for the said union, now produced by him, wherein an order for payment of 21. 2s. 9d. to James Croucher, his wife, and seven children, was made the 27th of March, 1840, is duly verified by my initials as clerk to the guardians of the said union."

'T'he following were the grounds of appeal relating to the points reserved in the present case :

That copies of the proceedings before the justices by whom the said order was made were not sent with a duplicate or a copy of the said order to the overseers of the poor of the said parish of Crondall, and that copies of all the examinations taken before the said justices touching the settlement of the said Martha Croucher and her said children, and upon which the said order was made, have not been sent to us, particularly an examination of the said Martha Croucher, taken on the 27th day of February last.

And as to the alleged relief of the said James Croucher whilst residing in the said parish of Elstead, in the years 1839 and 1840, the said examinations do not contain any sufficient legal evidence of relief of the said James Croucher or his family, either by the church wardens and overseers of the said parish of Crondall, or by any person or persons having any legal authority to acknowledge the said James Croucher as a settled parishioner thereof; and that the evidence of the payment of the sum of a. 2s. 9d. by the board of guardians of the Hartley Wintney Union ought not to have been received ; and that the said examinations do not contain any evidence of payment of the said sum of 2. 2s. 9d. by the parish of Crondall, or that the church wardens and overseers of the said parish of Crondall had any notice of the payment of that sum for the relief of the said James Croucher or otherwise, or that they knew that the said James Croucher, his wife and children, were not then residing in the said parish of Crondall; nor do the said examinations contain any sufficient legal evidence of any acknowledgment of the said James Croucher, or his wife or children, as seitled parishioners of the said parish of Crondall, by any person or persons having legal authority to bind the said parish.

[ocr errors]

That it is not stated nor does it appear who Mr. Lodge, Mr. Rowlam, and Mr. Chandler were, or that they had any authority to bind the parish of Crondall, or that at that time the said James Croucher was residing out of the said parish of Crondall ; nor does such alleged statement of the said last-named persons amount to any admission of the liability of the parish of Crondall to relieve or support the said paupers.

On the hearing of the appeal, it was proved that the matter of complaint was heard by the justices who made the order of removal on two days, namely, on the 27th of February, when some of the witnesses were examined, and on the 6th of March, to which day the inquiry was adjourned, and on which day the remainder of the witnesses were examined. On the 27th of February Martha Croucher, the pauper, was sworn, and made a statement in the presence of the said justices which was taken down in writing. This writing, on being produced at the trial, was in the following form :

Surrey, The examinations of Martha Croucher, lately residing, &c., to wit.

S touching the place of her settlement, and the settlement of her eight childen, taken upon oath before us, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the said county of Surrey, the day of January, 1845."

This document was set out at length in the case. It varied slightly from the examination sent to the appellants, and contained erasures and interlinestions as well as the following notes in the margin:

First, “ Mrs. Croucher is a most unwilling witness; on her former examination she swore to the fact of the rent having been paid to Hawkins." Secondly. “Quere, should there be separate orders for James and John ?" It was signed by Martha Croucher, but not by the justices. There was no form of jurat, and the justices' names nowhere appeared. It was indorsed : 6 1845. Draft examination of M. C.," and the words “ Feb. 1845. Afterwards retaken,” in pencil.

It was further proved at the trial that though the above document bears date in January, the statement was in fact made by the pauper on the 27th of February; that the said document was prepared by Mr. King, who was acting as the attorney for the parish of Elstead, and was not otherwise acting as clerk to the said justices; that the pauper, Martha Croucher, signed the said document, and that a copy of the same was not sent to the appellants, and that the alterations therein and notes thereon were made by Mr. King after the 27th of February. It was also proved that the examination of the said Martha Croucher on the 27th of February was not signed by the justices, and that she was re-examined on the 6th of March. Hereupon it was objected, on the part of the appellants, that the said document was an examination, a copy of which ought to have been sent to the appellants with the other examinations. The respondents replied that it formed no part of the examinations upon which the order was made. The Court of Quarter Sessions overruled the objection, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench, whether the said written statement of Martha Croucher of the 27th of February, sworn to by her, but without a jurat, and not signed by the magistrates, is to be considered an examination, of which a copy should have been sent to the appellants.

It was also objected by the appellants' counsel that the examinations contained no evidence of any acknowledgment by the parish officer of Crondall that the pauper James Croucher and his family were settled in that parish, inasmuch as the only relief stated to have been given to them whilst residing out of the parish of Crondall was the repayment by the guardians and relieving officers of the Hartley Wintney Union of relief originally given by the reliering officers of the Hambledon Union, in which the pauper resided, and not

« PreviousContinue »