Imatges de pÓgina
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ed. From the time of the pauper's mother's and The King v. Banbury (3). On the
marriage to the date of the indenture, the other hand, in The King v. Ilkeston (4),
pauper lived with and was maintained by where the residence apart from the master,
her and her husband, and after the binding was a mere act of indulgence on his part,
and during the whole term of his apprentice- and in no way connected with the indenture,
ship the pauper continued to live with them. no settlement was gained. Here, the re-
Pauper never served Lainton for a single sidence was with the master during the
day during the apprenticeship, at the trade whole term of the apprenticeship. It makes
of a bricklayer, nor was he ever by any no difference that the pauper was an ille-
one instructed in, nor did he ever work at gitimate son, as he had a legal home, at all
such trade, but both before and after the events, as soon as he was bound.
binding was in the habit of working at V. Lee and Yardley, contrà.-As it is
odd jobbs about Lainton's house whenever found by the case, “that the pauper never
he liked.

served Lainton for a single day, at the trade
During the period of apprenticeship, he of a bricklayer, during the apprenticeship,"
worked under contracts of hiring, entered it must be contended on the other side,
into with his master's consent, with various that a mere binding and inhabitancy is a
persons in the said parish of Burslem, at sufficient compliance with the statute.
the trade of a potter, paying to Thomas Though the word "service" is not men-
Lainton a portion of his wages for main- tioned in the act, yet the objects of the in-
tenance, and disposing of the rest as he denture being maintenance and teaching,
thought proper.

those objects are not carried out, where, The question for the opinion of the Court as in this case, all service under the indenwas, whether the facts disclosed establish- ture, or in other words, teaching, is exed an inhabitancy in the parish of Burslem, pressly negatived— The King v. Sandhurst sufficient to confer a settlement in that (5), and The King v. Banbury. Where the parish. If the Court should be of opinion acts or services of the apprentice have rethat such facts did establish an inhabi- ference to the indenture, as in The King v. tancy sufficient to confer a settlement in Charles, The King v. Linkinhorne, and The Burslem, the order of Sessions was to be King v. Banbury, its objects are furthered, confirmed. But if the Court should be of and a settlement is gained; but it is othera contrary opinion, the order of Sessions wise where, as in The King v. Ilkeston, the was to be quashed.

objects are in no way carried out. That Whately and Godson, in support of the is expressly shewn to be the case here. If, order of Sessions.—This question arises as is here contended, a residence anywhere upon the statute 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 8, under the indenture is sufficient, The King which enacts, "that if any person shall be v. Ilkeston was wrongly decided. But that bound apprentice, by indenture, and inhabit case, and The King v. Barmby in the Marsh in any parish, such binding and inhabita- (6) shew, that in the present case there has tion shall be adjudged a good settlement." been no sufficient compliance with the staThe binding and inhabitancy are the two tute. The contracts of hiring that the pauper things made necessary; but, here, the ap

entered into had no reference to the inden-
pellants seek to add a third condition- ture, but were inconsistent with it. The
namely, actual service. But service is not King v. Whitchurch (7), and The King v.
necessary These questions have most Shipton (8), in which case, Lord Tenterden,
frequently arisen, when the residence of C.J. says, “In order to gain a settlement
the apprentice has been in a third parish, by apprenticeship, there must be a con-
away from his master, in which cases it tinued service under the indenture. If
has been held requisite, that the residence

(3) 3 B. & Ad. 706 ; s.c. 1 Law J. Rep. (N.s.)
or "inhabitancy" should be in some way M.C. 64.
in furtherance of the indenture— The King (4) 4 B. & C. 64.
v. Charles (1), The King v. Linkinhorne (2),

15) 6 Ad. & El. 130; 8. c. 6 Law J. Rep. (N.s.)

M.C. 57.
(1) Burr. Sett. Cas. 706.

(6) 7 East, 381.
(2) 3 B, & Ad. 413; s. c. 1 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) (7) 1 B. & C. 574.
M.C. 42.

(8) 8 B. & C. 88; 8. c. 6 Law J. Rep. M.C. 92.




during the term of the apprenticeship, the in the form in the schedule, the overseers apprentice hires himself to a stranger to abandoned it, and made unother rate for the the indenture, the service is not referable same period, which also contained the declato the indenture, but to the contract of ration properly signed, but was informal in hiring; and, consequently, no settlement is other respects. An appeal was made to the gained by apprenticeship."

Sessions against both these rates; and these

defects of form were made grounds of LORD Denman, C.J.-I am unable to appeal (amongst many others) to the first distinguish this case from The King v. Lin- rate, but not to the second. The Court of kinhorne. The order of Sessions must be Quarter Sessions quashed the first rate for confirmed.

defects of form, and they quashed the second Patteson, J.-I am of the same opinion. rate as a concurrent rate, and therefore I do not see how any doubt can arise, where illegal, and also for informality:—Held, by there is a binding of the apprentice, and this Court, first, that the Court of Quarter he actually resides with the master.

Sessions had no pow

to quash the rates for Williams, J. and COLERIDGE, J. con- these defects of form, under the words of the curred.

2nd section of the above act, nor had they Order of Sessions confirmed. power to quash the first rate under the notice

of appeal on those grounds, as no grievance was shewn from the omissions; and that

therefore the first rate was good: secondly, that 1839.

the Sessions were right in quashing the Nov. 13.

second rate, as made for the same period as Rate-Form- Appeal-Act to regulate

the first, and therefore bad. Parochial Assessments, Construction of-

If, by the return to the certiorari, a record

not required by the writ is brought up, it is Certiorari, Return to.

too late to take advantage of that upon the Section 2 of 6 8.7 Will. 4. c. 96. enacts, argument upon the order of Sessions. A " That every rate made after the said period substantive motion should be made to quash shall, in addition to any other particular the return. which the form of making out such rate shall require to be set forth, contain an account of This was an appeal against two rates for every particular set forth at the head of the the relief of the poor of the parish of respective columns, in the form given in the Fordham, the first made the 3rd of July schedule to this act annexed, so far as the 1838, and the second upon the 22nd of same can be ascertained ; and the church- August in the same year. The Court of wardens and overseers, or other officers whose Quarter Sessions quashed both the rates, duty it may be to make and levy the said rate, with costs, for informalities (without inor such a number of the said churchwardens quiring into the merits of the cases, purand overseers, or other officers, as are com- suant to the grounds pointed out by the petent to the making and levying of the notices of appeal), subject to the opinion same, shall, before, the said rale is allowed of the Court of Queen's Bench


the by the Justices, sign the declaration given at following the foot of the said form; and otherwise the

CASE, said rate shall be of no force or validity :" On the 3rd of July 1838 the first-men

- Held, that the words of no force or tioned rate was made, and allowed by the validity" do not apply to the whole section, Magistrates, duly published, and afterbut to the latter part only, namely, an omis- wards partially collected. In this rate, the sion by the parish officers to sign the decla- properties rated were not numbered acration.

cording to the schedule annexed to the A rate was made, containing the declara- act, 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96, but the numbers, lion, properly signed, and was allowed by for the most part, were wholly omitted, or the Justices, and published, and partially else attached to the names of the occupiers collected by the overseers ; but upon disco- instead of the properties. The columns vering that it did not contain all the particulars intended for the number of votes were left

the "

entirely in blank. The names of many this second rate was not a rate made for persons were inserted without any sums the necessary relief of the poor, and the being carried out against them in the as- said rate was wholly unnecessary to be sessment. In many places, the column made. which should contain the name of the The Court held, that the rate of the 3rd occupier was left entirely in blank, without of July was informal, but that it could not even the word “ditto" under the name be abandoned and treated as a nullity by immediately preceding the blank; and the the parish officers of Fordham, after the column which should contain the “arrears steps they had taken to enforce it, without due or excused" was improperly left in an application to the Sessions to quash it. blank. These objections upon the face With respect to the rate of the 21st of of the rate of the 3rd of July were made August, the Court held, that the rate of grounds of appeal, in the notice, against July 3rd being in existence and uncollected, that rate, as also the objections— first, that of the 21st of August was a concurthat in that rate no mention was made of rent rate, and illegal; besides which ob

present arrear"; second, that that jection, it was bad on the ground of inforrate was not in the form prescribed by the mality. 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96. The notice of appeal If the Court of Queen's Bench should also contained several objections to that be of opinion that the Court of Quarter rate upon the merits. The appellants, Sessions were right in quashing both rates, Thomas Peck and Eyre Coote and others, on the facts above stated appearing, then having refused to pay the sums for which the judgment of the Court of Quarter Sesthey were therein rated, summonses were sions to be confirmed. obtained against them, August 7, 1838. If the Court of Queen's Bench should The parties summoned appeared before be of opinion that the Court of Quarter the Magistrates, August 14, and three Sessions were wrong, on the facts above warrants of distress were granted, but not stated, in quashing the rate of the 3rd of acted upon by the respondents, in conse- July, but were right in quashing the rate quence of their solicitor afterwards consi- of the 21st of August, then the order of dering the rate bad and void. The parish the Court of Quarter Sessions, as to the officers of Fordham, considering the rate rate of the 3rd of July, to be quashed, and of July 3 a nullity, on the 21st of August continuances being entered, if the Court ensuing made another rate. That rate had should think the rate of the 3rd of July a various defects on the face of it ; also, no subsisting rate, the appeal as to that rate entry was made under the head of “Amount to be heard on the merits, and the rate of not recoverable, or legally discharged." the 21st of August to be quashed, with These objections on the face of the rate of costs. August 21st, were not stated in the notice If the Court of Queen's Bench should of appeal against that rate, but were inci- be of opinion that the Court of Quarter dentally noticed by the Court, and no Sessions were wrong, on the facts above point was made by the respondents that stated, in quashing the rate of the 21st of the notice did not raise them.

August, but were right in quashing the It appeared likewise, that the rate of rate of the 3rd of July, then the order of August 21st was for the same period as the Court of Quarter Sessions, as to the that of July 3rd; the notice on the church rate of the 21st of August to be quashed, door of the August rate stating it to be the and, continuances being entered, the apfirst rate.

peal on that rate to be heard on the merits, The notice of appeal against the second and the rate of the 3rd of July to be quashrate contained the following objections, ed, with costs. amongst many others :—First, that the If the Court of Queen's Bench should rate of the 3rd of July was and still is in be of opinion that the Court of Quarter existence. Second, that this second rate Sessions were wrong, on the facts above was a concurrent rate with the rate of the stated, in quashing either rate, then the 3rd of July. Third, that the two rates order of the Court of Quarter Sessions, ought not to exist together. Fourth, that as to both rates, to be quashed, and, con

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

tinuances being entered, the appeal against upon the construction to be put upon the both rates to be heard on the merits. 2nd section of the 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96 (1);

In pursuance of the first section of the and depends upon whether, under the Act to regulate Parochial Assessments,' words used there, a rate is absolutely void (6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 96,) the Poor Law Com- and a nullity, for want of a strict commissioners issued an order under their seal pliance with all the particulars of that of office, dated June 22nd, 1837, by which section. It will be contended on the other they ordered, “That from and after the side, that the words, " and otherwise the 29th day of September in that year, no rate shall be of no force or validity,” apply rate should be allowed by any Justice of to the whole of the section; but the Court the Peace, nor should any rate allowed on will not give to them that extended meanor after that day be of any force, which ing, but confine them to the immediate should not be made according to the pro- antecedent, namely, the omission to sign visions of the above act to regulate paro- the declaration given at the foot of the chial assessments." And they further form. The July rate has that declaration ordered and declared, " That every rate properly signed, and is therefore a good for the relief of the poor in England and rate. But secondly, even if the words Wales, made after the said 29th day of should have the extended meaning conSeptember, should be made in the form tended for, the July rate could not be set forth in the schedule thereunder writ- abandoned by the parish officers as a nulten, and should contain an account of lity—The King v. the Justices of Cambridge every particular set forth at the head of (2), but only became “of no force or valithe respective columns therein, so far as dity" upon appeal to the Sessions. Words the same could be ascertained, and the of similar import have had a restrictive declaration given at the foot of the said meaning put upon them; as in Edwards v. form being the same as is set forth in the Dick (3), upon the construction of the 9 schedule annexed to the said recited act, Ann. c. 14. s. 1, and in Winchcombe v. the (the act to regulate parochial assessments,) Bishop of Winchester (4), and the several as is thereby provided.

cases there cited. If the more extended The schedule annexed to the above orders of the commissioners contained all (1) Section 1. provides, “That from and after the columns, and their respective headings, such period, not being earlier than the 21st day of of the form in the schedule to the 'Act to

March next after the passing of this act (19th Aug.

1836), as the Poor Law Commissioners shall, by regulate Parochial Assessments,' and it

any order under their seal of office, direct, no rate also contained six additional columns, for the relief of the poor in England and Wales under the heads--1. “ Number of votes," shall be allowed by any Justices, or be of any force, after " Name of occupier." 2. “Number

which shall not be made upon an estimate of the

net annual value of the several hereditaments rated of votes," after “Name of owner.” 3.

thereunto" (and it then provides how that annual . “ Total amount to be collected.” 4. value is to be ascertained). “ Amount actually collected.” 5. “ Pre- Section 2. “ And be it further enacted, that sent arrear.” 6. “ Amount not recover

every such rate made after the said period shall, in

addition to any other particular which the form of able, or legally excused.” The schedule

making out such rate shall require to be set forth, annexed to the order of the commissioners contain an account of every particular set forth at also contained a declaration at its foot in the head of the respective columns, in the form precisely the same words and form as that

given in the schedule to this act annexed, so far as

the same can be ascertained; and the churchwardens contained in the schedule to the Act to

and overseers, or other officers whose duty it may regulate Parochial Assessments.'

be to make and levy the said rate, or such a number The above orders, and the notice of of the said churchwardens and overseers, or other appeal, and the rates, were referred to,

officers, as are competent to the making and levying

of the same, shall, before the rate is allowed by the and used in argument by both sides, and

Justices, sign the declaration given at the foot of were considered as part of the case. The

the said form; and otherwise the said rate shall be rates contained the declaration at the foot of no force or validity.” of them, properly signed.

(2) 2 Ad. & El. 370 ; 8. c. 4 Law J. Rep. (N.s.)

M.C. 8. Platt, Gunning, and Byles, in support of

(3) 4 B. & Ald. 212. the order of Sessions.-Tbis question turns (4) Hobart, 165.

meaning is given to these words, and an

ther a rate is made upon the net annual informal rate is to be an absolute nullity, value, is matter of substance, and may without appeal, when will the parties who require evidence at the Sessions. The made or collected it be safe from actions, words of the second section require that if it should be discovered at some subse- all particulars shall be complied with, quent time that it was not made on the net “and otherwise," unless all are observed, annual value, or that some trifling parti- the rate shall be “ of no force or valicular was omitted ? Then, the first rate dity." In The King v. Newcomb (6), a was only voidable upon appeal; till then, rate was held invalid, even after confirit existed ; and as these defects 'of form mation, upon appeal. The second rate were made grounds of appeal, the Sessions then was a valid rate, and the Justices had have done right in quashing that rate. no power to quash it, as the objections, as Then, as to the August rate, the overseers

the case states,

were not stated in the had no power to make it, whilst the July notice of appeal against that rate, but were rate was a good and existing rate. In the incidentally noticed by the Court." By notice of appeal, this rate is objected to, the 41 Geo. 3. c. 23, the Justices can as concurrent and unnecessary. The Jus- only adjudicate upon such matters in a rate tices have so found, and were right in as are made grounds of appeal, by a notice quashing it. The statute of Elizabeth in writing— The King v. Bromyard (7), or does not enable the parish officers to make such notice may be waived under certain rates ad libitum, but only “weekly or circumstances.

Here was

no notice in otherwise,” for the necessary relief of the writing of these defects or waiver. Nor poor. Thirdly, the return to this certiorari

was that rate "of no force or validity,” on is bad. Upon this point, Mr. Byles con- account of informality. The case speaks tended, that the record returned by the of “various defects," (which is not suffiJustices was not that required by the writ ciently explicit to enable this Court to of certiorari, and that therefore the return consider them,) but only points out one, was bad. He referred to Nolan, vol. 2, namely, that it contained no column under p. 591, and the cases cited there : sed, the head of “ Amount not recoverable, or

Per Curiam-We consider that we cannot legally excused.” The schedule in the enter into this objection, now that the case act of parliament contains no such column, is in the course of argument; it is too late but it was added by the commissioners, to make such an objection. If there is any which they had no power to do. The form variance, such as is suggested, it might given in the schedule contains a column have been a proper ground for a substan- for Arrears due, or if excused,” which tive motion to quash the return, before the shews impliedly, that a new rate may be case came on for argument.

made before the old one has been wholly

collected, and that thus two may be in exBiggs Andrews and Tomlinson, contrà. istence at the same time. The case has -As to the July rate, do the informalities only found that the second was for the pointed out in the case make that rate ab- same period of time ; and not that it was solutely void, or only voidable by appeal ? unnecessary. It is absolutely void under the second section of the act, as those are defects appa- LORD DENMAN, C.J.-This discussion rent on the face of the rate, requiring no upon the words used in the 1st and 2nd extrinsic evidence upon appeal to make sections of this act of parliament, and the them so, and all done under it is void- difficulties that have occurred upon similar The King v. the Inhabitants of Stoke Da- phrases in other acts, may be the means marel (5). It is a good test, to consider of inducing the legislature to say, in what

decision of the Sessions, con- respects, and to what extent, a rate or infirming that rate, could have made it valid. strument shall be void, when the directions It could not, as they had no power under respecting it have not been complied with. any statute, to amend those defects. Whe- It is here contended, that under the words

(6) 4 Term Rep. 368. (5) 7 B. & C. 563 ; s. c. 6 Law J. Rep. M.C. 28. (7) 8 B. & C. 210; s.c. 6 Law J. Rep. M.C. 100.


whether any

« AnteriorContinua »