HOUSH

Teers of the poor the penfioners. The churchwardens were REX v. LIME fixty pounds out of pocket at the end of the year, and the fethions, finding that the overfeers had enough of the pub lic money already raifed to pay the churchwardens, ortered them to be reimburied. Objection was made to this order, that at the end of the year the officer cannot be reimbursed, for that no rate can be made to reimburse him. PER CURIAM. Here the money was raised already, and the order was no more than that one officer fhould pay to another. The following is a copy of the record in this cafe. The order of feflions was to this purport: Upon reading the petition of Thomas Thresher, fetting forth that he ferved the office of churchwarden "for the hamlet of Limehoufe, &c. in 1712, and that he "did in the time of his faid office lay out, over and above "what he received, fixty pounds, &c. and praying to be "reimbursed; it was referred at the laft feffions to the "confideration of three juftices to iffue fummons and

46

examine, &c. to whom the prefent overfeers and church"wardens declared that they had no objection to the ac"count of the petitioner, and that they believed he had "laid out that money... The three justices therefore al"lowed his accounts, and recommended to the officers "and inhabitants of the faid hamlet to make a rate to "reimburse the petitioner the faid fixty pounds, which "yet they refufe to do. And now on this day, on hearing "counted on both fides, for that it appeareth unto this "court, that the petitioner, when he was churchwarden "of, &c. informed the inhabitants thereof at their pa"rifh meeting, that he was confiderably in difburfe for "relieving the cafual poor of the faid hamlet, and prayed "a rate to reimburse him, and that they refused to make "him any rate, on pretence that the late churchwardens "and overfeers had public monies in their hands, upon "the balance of their accounts, fufficient to reimburse "him, which they agreed fhould be applied for that pur"pote, which money was received by the prefent church"wardens and overfeers of, &c. and that the faid fum "of fixty pounds is yet remaining due to the petitioner 46 upon the balance of his accounts, and that the fame "could not poffibly be raised by the petitioner while "he was in the faid office; this court doth therefore "order, that the prefent churchwarden and overfeers of, "&c. do forthwith pay to the petitioner fixty pounds fo as aforefaid by him expended, and now remaining " due to him; and that the faid fum, when paid, fhall be "allowed to the faid churchwarden, &c. upon their ac "counts."-PER CURIAM. Let all the orders made upon T 2

the

HOUSE.

REX v. LIME- the petition of Thomas Thresher against the defendants and the parish officers of, &c. refpecting the payment of fixty pounds expended by Thomas Thresher in his office, be affirmed.

The feffions

to their pre

301. Rex v. Overfeers of St. Peter's the Great, Chichester. cannot order Trinity, 10. Geo. 1. Foley, 33.-An order that the prefent the fucceeding overfeers thould pay the preceding three pounds, being overfeers to pay money expended by them in law charges, was quafhed. deceffors fums Upon fearching the records, the only fpecial order difcoof money due to vered of the fame name and date as the above, so imperfectly stated by Foley, runs thus: "CHICHESTER, to wit. At the general quarter feffions for this city, it being "made appear unto this court by John Chantrell, that "there were remaining due to him on his account as one

them on ac. count of the parish for law charges paid by them.

of the overfeers of the poor of the parish of St. Peter "the Great, at Subdeanry, within the faid city, for the "laft year, three pounds and fifteen fhillings, which the "now overfeers of the poor of the fame parish have not paid him it is, in the prefence of the now overfeers "of the poor of the faid parish, having nothing to fay "to the contrary, by this court ordered, that the

66

66

now overfeers of the poor of the said parish do forth"with pay unto the faid John Chantrell the faid three "pounds and fifteen fhillings fo remaining due to him on his account as aforefaid; and that they have allow"ance thereof in their accounts to be made with the "faid parish. It'being made appear unto this court by "Richard Libbard, that there were remaining due to him "on his faid account as one of the overfeers of the poor of "the parish of St. Peter the Great, at Subdeanry, within "the faid city, for the last year, eleven pounds two fhillings and fixpence, and that he hath alfo paid Mr. John

66

66

Halley, attorney at law, one pound five fhillings and ten"pence, for bufinefs by him done for the faid parish, "which the now overfeers of the poor of the fame parish "have not paid him; it is, in the prefence of the now "overfeers of the poor of the faid parish, having nothing "to fay to the contrary, by this court ordered, that "the now overfeers of the poor of the faid parish do "forthwith pay to the faid Richard Libbard, as well the "faid eleven pounds two fhillings and fixpence fo remaining due to him on his faid account as aforefaid, as the "faid one pound five fhillings and tenpence by him paid "to Mr. John Halfey for bufinefs done for the faid pa"rish; and that they have allowance thereof in their ac"counts to be made with the faid parish."-The order of the Court of King's Bench is in thefe words: "IT IS ORDERED, that the orders in this caufe made againit

the

"the present overfeers of the poor of, &c. to pay a fum "of money mentioned in the orders to John Chantrell "and Richard Hulfey, late overfeers of the poor of the “said parish, be quashed for infufficiency.'

ceeding over

302. Rexv. Juftices of Somerfetfhire, Mich. Term, 8. Geo. 2. The balance 2. Str. 992.-Mandamus to the juftices to grant a warrant must be paid for levying thirty pounds, being the balance of the ac- over to the fuce count of the last overfeers in their hands. They returned feers, notwiththat there was fuch a balance, but that the veftry had or- ftanding the vefdered them to retain it, and employ an attorney to fue for try may be willfome charity money, and get it laid out for the benefit of ing to let them the poor; that one Young was fo employed, and the ba- retain it to pay lance exhausted in fees, and that the overfeers had engaged bill of expences to pay Young; et eâ de caufâ they had refused to grant the for fuing for a warrant.-PER CURIAM. There must go a peremptory fum of money mandamus; for the 43 Eliz. c. 2. 1. 2. fays, the balance to be laid out in shall be paid over to the new overfeers under a penalty, and it is not in the power of the veftry to difpense with the ftatute,

an attorney's

charitable uses.

indictment

303. Rex v. King, Eafter Term, 20. Geo. 2. Str. 1268.- The Court will THE COURT refufed to quafh an indictment against over- not quash an feers for not paying over money to their fucceffors, as again't overfeers quafhing is not ex debito juftitiæ, and this is a growing not paying over evil; and in Rex v. Hemmings (a), an overfeer being in- the balance. dicted before the feffions, HOLT, Chief Justice, faid, that (a) Comb. 374it feemed to be within the direction of the ftatute.

poft. ch. 4.

affistant over

fuch falary at a

304. Rex . Welch and Others, Hilary Term, 25. Geo. 3. Overfeers canEditor's MSS.-Two juftices allowed the accounts of not take credit John Cooke, Robert Wynne, and Samuel Wadley, late over- for money paid feers of the parish of Cheltenham THE SESSIONS on ap- as a falary to an peal confirmed the allowance, and ftated the following feer; although Cafe: At a veftry held the fecond of May 1783, in the fuch affiftant parifh-church of Cheltenham, purfuant to notice pub- overfeer be aplifhed in the church for that purpose, it was agreed by pointed with the perfons prefent, being upwards of thirty, and occu- veftry meeting. piers of houfes and lands in the parish, that a perfon should be appointed to affift the churchwardens and overfeers in the execution of their office (fuch parith being very extenfive, and much burthened with poor); and accordingly one Giles Hooper was by the majority of perfons then prefent, being twenty-fix, and among whom was John Greenwood, one of the appellants, appointed fuch affiftant; which twenty-fix perfons fignified their affent thereto by figning their names at the foot of an agreement entered in the churchwardens books. The faid Giles

T3

Hooper

(a) Ante, Pages 78. 239.

REX.WELCH. Hooper by fuch agreement was to be paid by the overfeers out of the money to be collected for the poor rates twenty pounds as a falary for executing the faid office of affiftant. Walter Welch, one of the appellants, not ap proving of the man, though he approved of the measure, was prefent at fuch meeting, but did not fign the faid agreement. The other appellants, Robert Bendall and John White, were not prefent at the meeting, nor ever affented to the appointment. There are many other inhabitants and occupiers of houfes and lands in the parish who were not prefent, and whofe affent was not had to the appointment of fuch afliftant. It is not customary in the parish to have fuch an affiftant. The overfcers had in their accounts taken credit for twenty pound as paid by them to the faid Giles Hooper for a year's falary, MR. CowPER and MR. CLIFFORD in fupport of the order. The churchwardens and overfeers have a right to charge every thing neceffary for the relief of the poor: they could not of themselves have judged of the neceflity of this office and falary; but the inhabitants bad judged it neceffary. At a veftry all the inhabitants attend or may attend; and the act of the veftry is binding on the parish. In Rex v. Micklefield (a), lately determined, money expended in a law-fuit by the confent of the veftry was thought by the Court to be properly raised by a rate; and the only doubt was, whether there had been a veftry. It may be faid, that, if the parish be too large, feparate overfeers may be appointed; but the policy of the ftatute, 13. & (3) Vide ante, 14. Car, 2. c. 12. is now difapproved of (b), and the Court pages 2. & 13. does not encourage the divifion of parishes. At any rate, that cannot be done in an appeal against overseers' ac counts.---MR. BEARCROFT, contra. This is a question of confiderable importance, for it goes to the repeal of the 43. Eliz. c. 2. That ftatute has provided for the appointment of overfeers, and the veftry have nothing to do with them or their accounts, The purpose of the fatute in requiring that they fhall be fubftantial householders was not merely to fecure the money raifed, but aliq to throw the burthen of the office on thofe who are able to bear it. Nobody elfe is liable; and an order of appointment of overfeers, not ftating them to be “fubftantial (f) Vide ante, householders," is bad (c). The poorer part of the parish are exempted from this burthen by the ftatute; but if this order be fupported, it will be thrown upon them indirectly, for the falary is to be paid out of the poor rates, that is, by taxation of every inhabitant: and it would not be without inconvenience, for the veftry would have a place in their gift, and there would always be a contefted election.

269.

pase 4.

This is not like the cafe of Micklefield, where the law fuit REXO. WELCH was agreed to by the veftry; there the act of the veftry would be good evidence that the officers had laid out the parith money in a law-fuit properly, which they may do, but in no cafe can they give a falary to an affiftant overfeer properly. There are but three overfeers; if they are not fufficient, four may be appointed; fo there is no occafion to divide the parish.-LORD MANSFIELD. It is a hard cafe upon thefe officers who have paid the money by the direction of the parish, and no fraud or contrivance imputed; but I cannot make it a legal act. It is a great bur-' then; but the ftatute meant to throw it on the overfeers, and that they should do it without fee or reward.-MR. BEARCROFT faid it was hard, and, on the recommendation of the Court, he would undertake that the twenty pound fhould be allowed, and each party pay their own cofts, on the order being quafhed.-Order quafhed.

overfeer of the

against him,

305. Rex v. Egginton, Trinity, 26. Geo. 3. 1. Term A specific sum Rep. 369. The defendant had received in his character of money reas overfeer of the poor four pounds previous to his bank-ceived by an ruptcy, which was on the fifth of December 1785; but poor is not fuch his accounts were not made out till the Eafter following; a debt as can he and he had afterwards been committed (a) to Worcester proved under a gaol by two juftices, for not paying over the four pounds commiffion of as the balance of his accounts ERSKINE moved on a bankrupt former day (b) for a rule to fhew caufe why a writ-of-a-before his acbeas corpus fhould not iffue, directed to the gaoler at Wor- counts are decefter, commanding him to bring up the defendant, in livered in, order that he might be difcharged out of cuftody, on the (a) 17 Geo. 2. ground that this fum for which he had been committed c. 38. to gaol, was a debt exifting previous to the bankruptcy, and (b) Tuesday, might have been proved under the commiflion; and the June 27th, defendant had fince obtained his certificate.-But THE COURT, on account of the fituation of the defendant, who was not able to bear the expence of it, difpenfed with the neceffity of bringing him up by habeas corpus, and granted a rule to fhew caufe why the defendant fhould not be difcharged out of cuftody -CALDECOTT now fhewed cause, and contended, that as the defendant was not compellable to give in his accounts till fourteen days after Eafter, this fum which he had received in his character as overfeer was not a debt due at the time when the aɛt of bankruptcy was committed. That it was impoffible for any parifhioner to have fworn in December 1785, which was prior to the time when the defendant's accounts were delivered in, to the existence of any debt, much lefs could he have sworn to the quantum of fuch debt. This therefore was not a

T 4

debt