Page images
PDF
EPUB

First, For what places.

But the place must be a township or village.

The place must

unprovided for, ideo it commands them to appoint overseers.
They return,
that the vill of Rufford is part of no parish, but time out of mind has been
extra parochial, without church, chapel, or parochial rights, and that there
never have been any overseers of the poor, et ea de causâ they cannot appoint.
And there having been only an obiter opinion of the Court in the case of
Dolting v. Brewcomblodge, Hill. 11 Anne, B. R. that overseers of the poor
might be appointed in an extraparochial place; the Court directed an argu-
ment, that the point might be solemnly determined. And after argument
and consideration of all the statutes relating to the poor, the Court were of
opinion, that the powers given by the 43 Eliz. to be executed in parishes,
were, by the 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 12, extended to all townships and villages,
whether parochial or extraparochial, and consequently overseers might be
appointed in this case, for which purpose a peremptory mandamus was
awarded.

But a township or village it must be. In Rex v. Denham, 1 Bott, 37; 1 Nol. P. L. 13; the question was, whether Southwold park, being an extraparochial place, and consisting of two houses, and about 300 acres of land, was such a place as was liable to maintain its own poor? By the Court: it is now a settled point that the justices may appoint overseers in an extraparochial place, but such place must come under the notion of a town or village.

Rex v. Welbeck, 2 Str. 1143; 1 Bott, 38; 1 Nol. P. L. 11, 13. Mandamus suggests that there are several householders and farmers inhabiting and residing within the village of Welbeck, able to provide for the poor; and therefore commands the justices to appoint overseers of the poor. To this it is returned, that Welbeck is extraparochial, and is not, nor ever was reputed to be a village or township, and therefore they cannot appoint any persons to be overseers. And upon argument this was held to be a good return. For though it does not answer the supposal of the writ, as to there being several substantial householders and farmers; yet it answers the point in 13 and 14' Car. II. c. 12, by saying it is no township or village, or reputed as such: and it is to such places only that we can send a writ.

So also a place in a parish must be a township or vill to have its own either be a vill or overseers distinct from those of the parish. Rex v. Showler and Atter, 3

a reputed vill.

Burr. 1391; 1 Bott, 41.

And in order to obtain a mandamus to compel the appointment of overseers, it must be expressly sworn that the place either is or is reputed to be a vill. Rex v. J. of Bedfordshire, Cald. 167; 1 Bott, 48; 1 Noľ. P. L. 10.

And if the sessions find as a substantive fact that the place is a vill, the appointment of separate overseers is of course. Rev v. Ronton Abbey, 2 T. R. 207; 1 Bott, 56; 1 Nol. P. L. 13, 14; post, 10.

The 17 Geo. II. c. 37, authorises justices in general quarter sessions to allot and annex, to the nearest parish or place, lands improved or drained, when it is uncertain where they belong, so as to subject them to parochial rates, and see 5 B. & A. 775.

Secondly, What a township or vill.

(Secondly)—What is a Township or Vill.

Whatever may be the distinction generally between a town and a village, the words vill, village, and township, are considered as denoting the same topographical division, for the purposes of the poor laws; and a place so called may be such, either in strictness or by reputation; but it must have been a vill in one or other of these modes, at least as early as the 13 and 14 Car. II. which, as the 43 Eliz. c. 2, has been decided to embrace only parishes in esse when that statute was passed, must be taken to embrace only such vills as had an existence in the year 1662, the date of the 13 and 14 Car. II. Vide Jacob's Law Dictionary, tit. "Parish;" 1 Bla. Com. 114.

In Rex v. Denham, Burr. S. C. 37, Lord Hardwicke, C. J., observes, "It is certainly very hard to define exactly what is a township or a village;

it must be left to the judgment of the Court, upon the circumstances of the case stated." Lord Coke says, "Villa est ex pluribus mansionibus vicinata, et collata ex pluribus vicinis." 1 Inst. 115, b.

Secondly, What a town

ship or vill.

What is or is not a

In Rex v. Denham, 1 Bott, 37, it was held that a single house or two houses cannot amount to the notion of a town or village, and that if it had township or vill. been formerly a town or village, if the houses were in fact decayed and gone, it would cease to be a town or village. 1 Nol. P. L. 13.-Lee, J., observed, that the notion of a village, according to the ancient law, is a tithing consisting of ten families; that, according to the modern notion, it is a place that has a constable; that it ought to have at least the reputation of a town or vill: and that a vill must at least mean more than two houses.

In Rex v. Standard Hill, 4 M. & S. 378, it was argued, that according to Rex v. Euford, Cald. 542, although there be but one or two houses only, yet it may be a vill by reputation; and that wherever there is a large assemblage of houses, reputation is not necessary: and to shew that a place may become a vill in fact, though it be not so immemorially, Dolting v. Stokelane, Fortesc. 219, was cited; the intent of the 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 12, being, that as soon as it becomes a vill, the justices may appoint. The Court, however, did not seem inclined to adopt this doctrine. And Lord Ellenborough (speaking of a part of the old castle at Nottingham) said, The immediate consequence of holding this to be a vill, for which overseers ought to be appointed, would be that overseers must be appointed for all the inns of court, and every collegiate or ecclesiastical establishment, which would work a great alteration in the laws relating to this subject.

constable.

Wherever there is a constable, there is a township; there may be a con- Where there is a stable for a larger district but not for a smaller. Rex v. Horton, 1 Bott, 54, per Buller, J.; 1 Term Rep. 376, S. C.

In Rex v. Grafton, Burr. S. C. 101; 2 Str. 1071; 1 Bott, 37; 1 Nol. P. L. 15; the manor of Grafton, an extra-parochial place, once consisting of a capital messuage and three keepers' lodges in the park now disparked, and consisting of five dwelling-houses and farms, occupied by five several tenants, but never having had any overseers of the poor or other officers, till the overseer now appointed for the purpose of the present removal, was adjudged by the justices to be a township or village within the statute into which a removal might be made. It was moved to quash the order of the justices, and a rule was made to shew cause: and afterwards the rule was made absolute, without defence.

Five dwelling

held not a town ship or village to which a removal

houses and farms

can be made.

One capital

messuage and of labourers'

to constitute a

seers.

By the case of Rex v. Welbeck, 1 Bott, 38, the fact of there being substantial householders is immaterial, if it appear not to be a vill, (ante, 4). So in Rex v. Showler and Atter, 3 Burr. 1391; 1 Bott. 41; 1 Nol. P. L. 15; two justices appoint Thomas Showler and John Atter overseers of the poor of the township or village of Haugh. The sessions, upon appeal, cottages, held not adjudge Haugh to be a village or township, and confirm the appointment, vill for the purand state specially, that it appears to them, that the said place called Haugh, pose of having consists of a capital messuage, in which Thomas Showler, in the said separate overappointment named, with all his family, dwells; and of two small ancient cottages; and of one other small cottage lately built (all which cottages are let, along with the said capital messuage and the farm thereunto belonging, to the said Thomas Showler); and of another tenement, part of the said capital messuage; and all of them inhabited by families; and that one of the cottages is inhabited by the said John Atter, who is a day-labourer, and his family; and another of the said cottages is inhabited by another daylabourer and his family; and the other of the said cottages is inhabited by a shepherd and his family; and the tenement, part of the said capital messuage, is inhabited by a poor widow and her five children; all which occupiers of the said cottages, and of the said tenement, part of the said capital messuage, are under-tenants to the said Thomas Showler. It was moved to quash these orders, for that the facts stated shew that this place is neither a township nor a village.-And the Court were clearly and unanimously of opinion, that both these orders ought to be discharged. Lord Mansfield, C. J., observed, that by this method a place might be made into a village,

Secondly, What a township or vill.

The site of a

cathedral and its

stitute a vill,
though there be
many houses,
&c., upon it.

which, in fact, was not so; and the inhabitants of it might, by this contriv-
ance, withdraw themselves from contributing towards the support of the
poor
of their parish.

In Rex v. Justices of Peterborough, Cald. 238; 1 Bott, 50; 1 Nol. P. L. 15 ; on showing cause against a rule for a mandamus to require the appointment area, do not con- of overseers of the poor for the Minster in Peterborough, it appeared that it was an extra-parochial place, containing upwards of sixty acres of ground, upon which were twenty-five dwelling-houses at least, besides poor houses of the annual value of 40%. at least; that these houses were inhabited, except in the instance of the bishop and three of the prebendal houses, altogether by laymen or strangers to the cathedral, and mostly persons of fortune, who kept servants that acquired settlements therein. That the poor had been supported from some fund belonging to the dean and chapter; that there never was any constable or other civil officer appointed for the said precinct, or any overseer of the poor, or churchwarden; nor had the inhabitants ever contributed to the relief of the poor within the precinct, or been called upon so to do.-Lord Mansfield. This space comprehends no more than the site of the cathedral and the area round it, and consequently was, in former times, within the sanctuary, and, as such, sacred and inviolable as the church itself. In modern times, to be sure, there is no such thing as sanctuary, but these places have, throughout all ages, without interruption, enjoyed those immunities, as Westminster Abbey now does, and other places of the like nature. The ancient inns of court, though not exactly upon this principle, have also, at all times, been privileged; and a similar exemption was not questioned in a late case, Rex v. Gardner, Cowp. 79, with respect to that part of the court and garden ground of Catherine Hall in the university of Cambridge, which lay within the old and extra-parochial part of that foundation. Would you say that Christchurch, in Oxford, is a vill? I am not satisfied that this place is a vill, and the party applying do not even call it so.-Buller, J. As the party applying for a mandamus does not state, as a fact, that this place was ever reputed a vill (which, where the facts of the case do not, upon some clear principle of law, shew the place to be of that denomination, the Court has holden to be indispensably necessary for the purpose of founding an application for a mandamus), this case falls within the case cited. Rule discharged.

Vill and hamlet

terms.

An order, appointing overseers of the "hamlet" of B., in the parish of C., are synonymous is good; for it shall be intended that the place was a vill, unless it be stated to be otherwise; for "vill" and "hamlet" are, in common acceptation, used as synonymous terms. Rex v. Morris, 4 T. R. 550; 1 Bott, 6, 65; 1 Nol. P. L. 11.

If the sessions

find as a fact that vill, it is conclu

the place is a

sive.

May be inquired into by affidavit.

Extra-parochial

place become a township.

Rex v. Ronton Abbey, 2 T. R. 207; 1 Bott, 56. This was a case sent up by the sessions for the opinion of the Court of King's Bench; there were only three houses, and no constable or tithing-man, nor, it seems, any church or chapel, and this passed as a vill; but there had been orders of removal to it executed, and some evidence was given of overseers and other officers having formerly been appointed; upon which it was expressly found by the sessions to be a vill by reputation, which precluded all question before the Court above, whether it were so or not; so that this case proves not that three houses alone make a vill, but only, that if a place be found by the sessions, upon the evidence there produced, to be a vill by reputation, it may be taken to be such, though there be but three houses remaining, and no other characterizing circumstances.

Rex v. Standard Hill, 4 M. & S. 382. It appears by this case, (ante, 5,) that the Court of King's Bench will, on removal by certiorari of an appointment by two justices of overseers of the poor, enquire, upon affidavit, whether the place for which the appointment is made, be a township or vill; and where it was neither stated, nor appeared from the affidavits, to be either a township, hamlet, or vill, or to be reputed such, the Court quashed the appointment.

An extra-parochial district may become a township by act of parliament, but, in that case, it cannot be treated for the purposes of settlement, &c., as

having been of that denomination before the date of its creation, under the act, up to which period it must be regarded as if it had been wholly uninhabited. Rex v. Oakmere, 5 B. & A. 775.

Secondly, What a town

ship or till.

(Thirdly)—What Number of Overseers may be appointed.

number, &c.

Must not exceed

four unless by special enact

In stating the number of overseers, the words of the statute are, four, Thirdly, What three, or two. This means, exclusive of the churchwardens; and it has long been held that there must not be more than four, nor fewer than two, except where the parish is subdivided into townships, in which case each township may have four, three, or two overseers appointed. In some cases, particularly in larger towns, a greater latitude is given by some special statute; but no ment. usage for a greater or smaller number than the 43 Eliz. prescribes, will avail against the express terms of its enactment: and if more than four be appointed, the instrument is void, as to every one of the persons appointed. Rex v. Loxdale, 1 Burr. 446; Rex v. Morris, 4 T. R. 550; Rex v. Clifton, 2 East, 168; Rex v. All Saints, Derby, 13 East, 143; Rex v. Forrest, 3 T. R. 38; Rex v. Wymondham, 6 T. R. 552.

Rex v. Pinney and another; 2 B. & C. 322; 3 D. & R. 578. By 47 Geo. III. s. 2, c. 111, s. 92, (local and personal act) it was enacted that the then overseers of the parish of Woolwich, should continue to be overseers for the remainder of the year 1807, and until two other overseers should be nominated and appointed, in the manner and at the time by law directed, to succeed them; and in Easter week, or within one month of Easter, in every year, two persons, being substantial householders in the said parish, should be nominated and appointed, in the manner by law directed, to be overseers of the poor of the said parish. By an order of two justices, made on the 25th March, 1823, four persons therein named were appointed overseers of the poor of the parish of Woolwich; and upon appeal the sessions confirmed that order. A rule nisi having been obtained for quashing the order of sessions, Bolland & Andrews shewed cause, Scarlett & Adolphus, contrà.-Abbott, C. J. It is a general rule of construction, that affirmative words in a later statute do not repeal a former, unless there be something wholly inconsistent in the provisions of the two statutes.-Lord C. B. Comyns, in his Digest, tit. Parliament, R. 25, lays it down that such affirmative words do not take away a former statute, unless they in sense contain a negative. Now the statute of Elizabeth directs that the overseers for parishes shall be four, three, or two substantial householders. The local act merely directs that the then overseers should continue in office to the end of the year, and until two others should be appointed, and that two others should be annually appointed. These words do not, in sense, contain a negative, nor is there any inconsistency between a provision authorizing the appointment of four, three, or two overseers, and another directing the appointment of two. The latter statute requires absolutely that two shall be appointed, but it does not say that more than two shall not be appointed. That being so, I am of opinion that the provision of the statute of Elizabeth, as to the appointment of overseers, is not repealed by the local act, and that the order of justices was right. Rule discharged (a).

then overseers of

to be overseers

A local act directed that the the parish of W. should continue for the remainder of the current year, and until should be appointed, and that should be ap pointed annually. Held that this the statute 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, pointment of and that an apfour overseers for the parish of W.

two others

two overseers

act did not repeal

was valid.

(a) Sec Plowden, 112, 113, and Rex v. Burridge, 3 Peere W. 461

Fourthly, Who to be appointed,

&c.

A., B., and C.,

carrying on trade in partnership, had a dwellinghouse, yard, and premises in a parish in London, all the partners were in the habit of frequenting the

premises daily for the purpose of business, but none of them resided there. The dwelling. house was inhabited by a clerk, who managed the business for them, but the rent, rates, and taxes were paid by the firm: Held, that

each of the part

holder within

(Fourthly)-Who may be appointed, and herein of Non-residents, and Assistants, and Guardians of the Poor.

The statute requires that the persons chosen as overseers shall be substantial Householders there, that is, in the parish or place for which they are chosen.

Rex v. Poynder, 2 D. & R. 258; 1 B. & C. 178; 1 D. & Ryl. Mag. Ca. 247. Indictment against the defendant for refusing to take upon him the office of overseer of the poor of the parish of St. Ann, Blackfriars. Plea, not guilty. At the trial, before Abbott, C. J., the only question was, whether the defendant was a householder within the meaning of the 43 Eliz. c. 2. It appeared that the defendant, William Hopson and Thomas Poynder the younger, were lime merchants and co-partners, and were the owners of a dwelling-house, yard, premises and building in Earl-street, in the parish of St. Ann, Blackfriars, in the city of London, but that neither of them ever slept there, the defendant and Poynder the younger dwelling at Clapham Common, and Hopson at Stamford-hill, in the parish of Tottenham, in the county of Middlesex. One Medlicott, who managed the business for them, resided in the house in Earlstreet. The rent, rates, and taxes, were paid by the firm. Each of the partners frequented the premises daily, for the purpose of business, and the defendant had once voted at an election of a lecturer, which was a privilege belonging to resident householders. It was contended at the trial, that the defendant was not a householder within the statute of Elizabeth. The Lord Chief Justice was of opinion that he was, and a verdict was found for the crown.-Denman, C. S., now moved for a new trial, and cited Rex v. Hall, ners was a house- 1 B. § C. 123; 2 D. & R. 241 ; 1 D. & Ryl. Mag. Ca. 232, 259, S. C.; in which this court decided that one of several partners resorting daily for the purpose of business to a house rented by all, but which was inhabited by serve the office of their servant, was a householder in the place where the house was situate, so as to qualify him to be a commissioner of a court of requests. The object of the statute in that case was to confer a privilege. The object of the 43 Eliz. was to impose a burden on the persons therein described. Besides, the defendant was a househoulder in Clapham, and might therefore be called upon to serve in two places at the same time, an office requiring personal attendance.-Abbott, C. J. When a similar question was under our consideration last term, we were not insensible that a distinction might be attempted to be made between those cases where the legislature intended to confer a benefit, and others where it intended to impose a burden. We were of opinion that there was no foundation for such a distinction, and that the same rule of construction ought to prevail in all cases. We have no doubt in this case that the defendant is a householder within the meaning of the statute of Eliz. It was in evidence that he had enjoyed one of the privileges of a resident householder; for he had voted for a lecturer, which was a privilege belonging to resident householders only.─Bayley, J., observed, that a large number of houses in the metropolis are merely occupied by clerks or servants, but that is no reason why their owners should not be called upon to discharge those duties which fall upon other householders.-Holroyd, J., and Best, J., concurred. Rule refused. (See also Rex v. Adlard, 5 B. & C. 772; 7 D. & R. 340.)

stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, and liable to

overseer.

The Court will quash the appointment as to those who are not substantial householders.

Rex v. Weobly in Herefordshire, 2 Str. 1261; 1 Bott, 4; 1 Nol. P. L. 53. In this case the defendants were appointed overseers for the town of Weobly, and in the appointment were styled principal inhabitants. It was moved to quash this appointment, because they were not described to be substantial householders.-Et per Curiam. The justices must certainly pursue the power given them, which is to appoint substantial householders, which is a inuch more limited description than inhabitants; for a man may be an inhabitant, and a principal inhabitant, and not be a householder; so this appointment is void. (Sec 1 B. & C. 131, n.)

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »