Page images

Marlow parish, he would give me my relief there instead of my walking to Wooburn parish for the relief. I have always received my relief from Kingston, in the parish of Little Marlow, all my life, as well as all the time I have been receiving relief from Kingston as before.”

Henry Kingston.--" I am one of the relieving officers of the Wycombe Union, in the counties of Bucks and Oxon. About four years ago, the pauper, , Helen Reeves, applied to me whilst I was relieving the poor of Wooburn, in the county of Bucks, for relief for her husband, who was ill. I gave her relief for her husband, and charged it in my account to the parish of Wooburn aforesaid, which relief has been continued, and charged to the said parish of Wooburn until the last twelve months, when I received an order from the board of guardians to charge the relief to the parish of Little Marlow, which I accordingly did, but did not give the overseers of Little Marlow any notice that the payment had been charged to Little Marlow instead of Wooburn."

At the hearing of the said appeal, it was objected by the appellant parish (on an objection duly taken by the grounds of appeal), that the said examinations were insufficient to shew that the said Helen Reeves and her said children were settled in the said parish. The Court thereupon quashed the order upon the merits, subject to a case.

The question for the opinion of the Court is, whether the examinations, as herein set forth, were primâ facie sufficient to shew that the said Helen Reeves and her said children were, at the time of the making the order, settled in the parish of Wooburn. If they were, the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions is to be quashed.

Birch and Sanders, in support of the order of Sessions.-Nothing appears in these examinations to affect the parish beyond the mere fact that the relieving officer of the union charged certain payments to the parish. No settlenient was proved, but only evidence of some settlement to be inferred from acknowledgments by relief given when out of the parish. Kingston's evidence is not binding upon Wooburn. It ought to have been shewn that he was the agent of Wooburn parish, or his acts had been adopted. (Reg. v. Bradford, 2 New Sess. Cas. 330 ; 1 New Mag. Cas. 522.) [COLERIDGE, J.-He says he charged it in his accounts.] These were not produced at the Sessions, or before the justices. [COLERIDGE, J.-Must not the accounts be audited by law, so that the parish would know ?] It is not part of the officer's duty to fix a particular parish, but to account to the union. A relieving officer is unknown to the law, and is merely the paid officer of the guardians of the union. Against a particular parish, no inference can be drawn from his acts, greater than would be drawn from the act of a mere stranger. There is nothing in the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, to authorize him to give relief, still less, if possible, to give out-door relief. Assuming, however, that he has such authority, it is only on behalf of the union. Settlement by acknowledgment is not to be lightly presumed against a parish. (Reg. v. Carnarvon, 2 Q. B. 325.) Here the statement is, not that the parish paid, but only that they were charged. If the acts of the guardians are thus to bind the parish, the case of Reg. v. Totness (14 L. J. M. Č. 148; 1 New Mag. Cas. 383) will be overruled. There it was held that no order of magistrates can be made in the absence of the party whose interests are to be affected by it; and that, therefore, where two magistrates made an order on the guardians of a union under 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, s. 27, directing them to give relief to an infirm pauper, without requiring that she should reside in any workhouse, and the guardians returned, amongst other things, that neither they nor the overseers of the parish in which the pauper was stated to be residing, and entitled to relief therefrom, had been summoned to attend,

nor were present at the hearing of the complaint or the making of the order the order was bad. No doubt the relieving officer has duties and powers under the first order of the Poor-law Commissioners, section 14; but even if they would support the inference which the other side seeks to draw from the acts of this relieving officer, the orders of the Poor-law Commissioners are not part, of the case, and this Court will not take judicial notice of them. (Rew v. Dolgelly Union, 8 A. & E. 561.)

M. Chambers and Power, contrà.—The effect of the incorporation of the parishes into a union, and the rules made by the Poor-law Commissioners, is, that the relieving officer becomes a public officer; and the presumption is that he acted correctly in giving and charging his relief. Parishes contribute proportionately to the amount of relief, and regular accounts are kept. [Coleridge, J.-We. cannot treat them here as accounts in the absence of proof.] The order of the Poor-law Commissioners for this purpose must be judicially noticed. The 15th section of the first Poor-law Amendment Act empowers the Poor-law Commissioners to make rules and regulations for the management of the poor and the administration of the laws for their relief. By the 42nd section, all the general rules made by the commissioners are to be as valid and binding, and are to be obeyed and observed, “as if the same were specifically made by and embodied in this Act." By the 71st section of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, any copy of any such rule, order, or regulation, printed by the Queen's printer, shall, after the lapse of fourteen days from the date thereof, be received in evidence, and judicially taken notice of. It is, therefore, competent to the respondents to tender now certain orders of the Poor-law Commissioners. [WIGHTMAN, J.Not unless they were before the Court below. We have to consider the case submitted to us.] We can use them to shew what the duties of a relieving

If there was a scintilla of evidence, the Sessions have decided wrongly. The 55th section of the Poor-law Act shews that a register is kept, as well of the number of persons relieved at or in the work house, as of the number of persons relieved in a given parish out of the workhouse. Clearly, then, the fact of relief was brought to the notice of the officer of Wooburn, either as relief administered at or in the workhouse, or out of the parish, because in the latter case the accounts must have shewn an excess beyond the amount pointed out by the register. The presumption is, that the Poor-law Commissioners have done their duty; and if so, there must have been a day for auditing the accounts of Wooburn, at which this charge was brought to the notice of its officers. If so, there has been acquiescence. In the case of Reg. v. Bradford, the facts fell far short of these; there it did not appear that the relieving officer was not acting on his own discretion. In this case there is sufficient to throw on the other side the burden of proving that his acts were not done with their authority, and had not received their ratification ; for each parish is represented at the board, and the act of the officer of the board must, unless rebutted, be deemed the act of each parish which it purports to affect.

Cur. adv. vult.

officer are.

At the sittings after Hilary Term, judgment was delivered as follows:

LORD DENMAN, C. J.-In the case of The Queen v. Little Marlow, the question is, whether the examination was primâ facie sufficient. It appears by the case that the deceased husband of the pauper was resident in Little Marlow, and he being very ill, his wife went to Wooburn, and applied to Kingston, a relieving officer of the union, when he was paying the Wooburn poor there, for relief. He gave her relief in order to save her coming from Little Marlow, and told her she might for the future receive her relief from him in Little Marlow,

when he was in the course of paying the paupers of this parish there. This he accordingly did until the husband died, and subsequently for a period of more than a year. Kingston, in addition, stated that he had charged the relief to the parish of Wooburn until within the last twelve months, when the board of guardians ordered him to charge it to Little Marlow, which he had accordingly done, but had not given the overseers of Little Marlow any notice of the change. The point raised on the statement is whether there is any primâ facie evidence of relief given by the parish of Wooburn. It was given by the hands of Kingston, the relieving officer. If he was the agent of the parish acting within the scope of his authority, or if the fact was brought to the knowledge of the overseers of Wooburn, and submitted to by them, it must be taken as given by Wooburn. If neither of these suppositions is sustainable, then Wooburn cannot be affected. The objection was raised on the examination, and the admissibility of any part of the evidence was of course a question at sessions. We cannot, therefore, take notice of any charge on the one parish or on the other, which the relieving officer might have made in his books, for they were not produced ; nor is there any statement, if there had been, of their having been shewn or brought to the cognizance of the overseers of Wooburn parish; nor is there any reasonable presumption they would be present at, or know any thing about, the payment, so as from it to draw any inference against the parish as an admission of the settlement. The evidence, therefore, if any, would arise from the act of Kingston binding the parish as that of an agent acting within the scope of his authority ; and it may be the relieving officer is so appointed, or has such communication with the guardians or overseers in the parish, as that an agency of this sort might fairly be inferred, but nothing appears in the case but the simple fact of the relieving officer administering relief. All we gather from the statute, the 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, is, that the relief of the poor in a union is administered by the board of guardians, from which the natural inference is, that the relieving officer is their servant. In some way the guardians represent the parish at the board, and through them the parish ought to be made aware of such relief ; but in the present statement this is left far too uncertain to be made the ground of effecting the settlement, and this view is in accordance with that which the Court took in the case of Reg. v. Bradford, on the evidence of chargeability afforded by a single act of relief administered by the relieving officer. We think, therefore, the Sessions were right in their conclusion, and therefore this rule ought to be discharged.

Rule discharged. E.W.


Hilary Term.-January 20 and February 10, 1847.

THE QUEEN v. THE INHABITANTS OF East STONEHOUSE. Apprenticeship settlementSecondary evidence --Assent of justices—42 Geo. 3, c. 46–56 Geo. 3, c. 139

- Finding of Sessions. To prove a settlement by a parish apprenticeship, subsequent to 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, the deed not being produced, and secondary evidence being received, the pauper stated that he had been in fact bound as a parish apprentice; and one of the parish officers of the parish by which the pauper had been bound produced a register book of the parish apprentices, from the year 1802. This was a register kept in accordance with the provisions of 42 Geo. 3, c. 46, and in the form given by that Act, containing at the end the names of the magistrates assenting,signed by themselves :Peld, no secondary evidence that the requisites, under 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, to give a settlement, had been

complied with, The Sessions were of opinion that the justices had allowed, by signing and sealing, an indenture reciting

an order ; but there being no other evidence that an order wos made, they found also that there was not sufficient legal evidence of a parish apprenticeship, and quashed the order, subject to a case :-Held, that the question was left open to the decision of this Court, and the finding of the Sessions was confirmed. (PON an appeal by the church wardens and overseers of the poor of the

parish of Milverton, in the county of Somerset, from and against an order made by Thomas Gardiner and John Foote, Esqrs., two of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the county, whereby Maria Johns, wife of William Johns, alias William Smith, a private in the royal marines, belonging to her Majesty's ship Pandora, and Harriett, William, John, and Mary, their children, were removed from the parish of East Stonehouse, in the said county of Devon, to the said parish of Milverton, as the place of their last legal settlement, the Sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following

Case. The examinations which purported to set up a settlement, by apprenticeship of William Johns, in the appellant parish, shewed, in the opinion of the Sessions, sufficient search for the indenture of apprenticeship, so that its loss might be presumed, and secondary evidence of the binding might be given. The examinations, so far as they are material, with reference to the point in this case, were as follow :

William Johns said: "I resided with my mother, Thomazine Johns, until I was about ten or twelve years of age, when I was bound out as parish apprentice by the parish officers of Chipstable, in the county of Somerset, to Robert Besley, a farmer residing in the parish of Milverton, in the said county of Somerset, to serve him until I attained the age of twenty-one years.

Charles Surrage said :-“ I am one of the overseers of the poor of the said parish of Chipstable, in the county of Somerset. I produce a book, being a register of all the poor children bound apprentice, or assigned, since the 1st day of June, 1802, by the overseers of the poor of the parish of Chipstable, in the county of Somerset. Under date the 2nd day of April, 1823, was an entry of the binding out one William Smith, a male, aged ten years, described as the bastard child of Thomazine Vicary and William Smith, the mother residing at Chipstable, to Robert Besley, a farmer residing in Milverton, until he attained the age

of twenty-one years. The names of the overseers, parties to the said indenture, were John Daveys and James Rogers. The magistrates assenting to the binding, and whose names are affixed, signed by themselves, are, John Halliday, L. St. Aubyn.”

The following was the extract from the register-book, produced by Charles Surrage, and sent to the appellants with, and forming part of, the examination :

[blocks in formation]

Until 21

marriage with my present husband. I had an illegitimate child called William

Thomazine Vicary said :-“My maiden name was Johns previous to my

Bastard child
of Thomazine
Vicary and

7th April, William

1823. Smith.

years of


Mother in
Chipstable, Robert Besley. Farmer. Milverton.
Father in



Overseers, parties to the Indenture of Assignment,


Magistrates assenting, signed by themselves,


« PreviousContinue »