Page images


Teers of the poor the pensioners. The churchiwardens were Rex v. Link:

ixty pounds out of pocket at the end of the year, and the fetlions, tinding that the overseers had enough of the public money already raised to pay the church wardens, or dered them to be reimburied.' Objection was made to this order, that at the end of the year the officer cannot he 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 thould pay to another. The following is a copy of the record in this case. The order of seslions was to this purport: “Upon reading the petition of Thomas Thresher,

setting forth that he terved the office of churchwardeii " for the liamlet of Limchoule, &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 last sessions to the "confideration of three justices to issue funmons and " examine, &c. to whom the present overseers and church

wardens declared tliat 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 said fixty pounds, which “yet they refufe to do. And now on this day, on hearing “ counter on both sides, for that it appeareth unto this "court, that the petitioner, when he was churchwarden " of, &c. informed the inhabitants thereof at their

pa"rish meeting, that he was considerably in disburse for " relieving the casual poor of the said hamlet, and prayed a rate to reiinburse him, and that they refused to make “him any rate, on pretence that the late churchwardens " and overseers had public monies in their hands, upon "the balance of their accounts, sufficient to reimburse "him, which they agreed should be applied for that pur

pote, which money was received by the prefent church"wardens and overteers of, &c. and that the said fum "of fixty pounds is yet remaining due to the petitioner “ upon the balance of his accounts, and that the same " could not possibly be raised by the petitioner while “ he was in the said office; this court doth therefore " order, that the present churchwarden and overseers of, * &c. do forthwith pay to the petitioner fixty pounds Ufo as aforesaid by him expended, and now remaining “ due to him ; and that the said fuin, when paid, shall be " allowed to the said churchwarden, &c. upon their ac"counts."PER CURIAM. Let all the orders made upon

T 2


Rox v. Lime- the petition of Thomas Thresher against the defendants and

the parish officers of, &c. respecting the payment of fixty pounds expended by Thomas Thresher in his office, be affirmed.


The feffions 301. Rex v. Overseers of St. Peter's the Great, Chichester. cannot order Trinity, 10. Geo. 1. Foley, 33. -- An order that the present the succeeding overseers thould pay the preceding three pounds, being over seers to pay money expended by them in law charges, was quashed. deceffors rums Upon searching the records, the only special order discoof money due to vered of the same name and date as the above, so imperthem on ac. fectly stated by Foley, runs thus: “ CHICHESTER, to wit. count of the

At the general quarter sessions for this city, it being parish for law charges paid by

“ made appear unto this court by John Chantrell, that them. “there were remaining due to him on his account as one

“ of the overseers of the poor of the parish of St. Peter " the Great, at Subdeanry, within the said city, for the “ last year, three pounds and fifteen shillings, which the “ now overseers of the poor of the fame parish have not

paid him : it is, in the presence of the now overseers “ of the poor of the said parith, having nothing to say “ to the contrary, by this court ordered, that the

now overseers of the poor of the said parish do forth“ with pay unto the said John Chantrell the said three

pounds and fifteen Thillings so remaining due to him “ on his account as aforesaid; and that they have allow“ ance thereof in their accounts to be made with the “ faid parith. 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 overseers of the poor of “ the parish of St. Peter the Great, at Subdeanry, within “ the laid city, for the last year, eleven pounds two thil

lings and fixpence, and that he hath also paid Mr. John Halley, attorney at law, one pound five shillings and ten

pence, for business by him done for the said parith, “ which the now overseers of the poor of the fame parish “ have not paid him ; it is, in the prefence of the now “ overseers of the poor of the said parish, having nothing “ to say to the contrary, by this court ordered, that “ the now overseers of the poor of the said parish do “ forthwith pay to the said Richard Libbard, as well the “ faid eleven pounds two thillings and fixpence so reinain“ ing due to him on his said account as aforesaid, as the “ faid one pound five shillings and tenpence by him paid " to Mr. John Halsey for business done for the said pa“rish ; and that they have allowance thereof in their ac" counts to be made with the said parish."--The order of the Court of King's Bench is in these words : “ It is " ORDERE)), that the orders in this caufe made againit

" the

“the present overseers of the poor of, &c. to pay a sum " of money mentioned in the orders to John Chantrell * and Richard Halsey, late overseers of the poor of the " said parish, be quathed for insufficiency."

302. Rexv. Juftices of Somersetshire, 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 fuck count of the last overseers in their hands. They returned

ceeding over

seers, notwith. that there was luch a balance, but that the veftry had or- standing the ver. dered them to retain it, and employ an attorney to sue for try may be will. fome charity money, and get it laid out for the benetit of ing to let them the poor; that one Young was so employed, and the ba- retain it to pay lance exhausted in fees, and that the overseers had engaged bill of expences to pay Young ; et de causâ they had refused to grant the for fuing for a warrani.-PER CURIAM. There must go a peremptory sum of money, mandamus; for the 43 Eliz. c. 2. 1. 2. fays, the balance to be laid out in

charitable uses. Thall be paid over to the new overseers under a penalty, and it is not in the power of the veftry to dispense with the ftatuate,

affiftant over.

303. Rex v. King, Easter Term, 20. Geo. 2. Sır. 1268.- The Court will The Court refused to qualh an indictment against over- not quath an

indictment seers for not paying over money to their successors, as

against overseers qualhing is not ex debito juftitiæ, and this is a growing not paying over evil; and in Rex v. Hemmings (a), an overseer being in- the balance. dicted before the sessions, Holt, Chief Justice, said, that (a) Comb. 374. it seemed to be within the direction of the statute.

poft. ch. 4. 304. Rex r. Welch and Others, Hilary Term, 25. Geo

. 3: Overfeers canEditor's MSS. – Two justices allowed the accounts of not take credit John Cooke, Robert Wynne, and Samuel IVadley, late over- for money paid feers of the parish of Cheltenham THE SESSIONs on ap

as a Sola:y to an peal confirmed the allowance, and stated the following feer; although Cale: At a vestry held the second of May 1783, in the such affiftant parish-church of Cheltenham, pursuant to notice pub- overseer be aplished in the church for that purpose, it was agreed by pointed with

such salary at a the persons present, being upwards of thirty, and occu

veftry meeting piers of houses and lands in the parish, that a perfon should be appointed to aslift the churchwardens and overseers in the execution of their office (such parith being very extenfive, and much burthened with poor); and accordingly one Giles Hooper was by the majority of perfons then present, being twenty-fix, and among whom was John Greenwood, one of the appellants, appointed such assistant; which twenty-lix perfons fignified their allent thereto by signing their names at the foot of an agreement entered in the church wardens books. The laid Giles



Rexu.WELCH. Hooper by such agreement was to be paid by the over

seers out of the monev to be collected for the poor rates twenty pounds as a falary for executing the said office of affiftant. Walter Welch, one of the appellants, not approving of the man, though he approved of the meature, was present at such meeting, but did not fign the said agreement. The other appellants, Robert Bendall and John White, were not present at the mecting, nor ever allented to the appointment. There are many other inhabitants and occupiers of houses and lards in the parish who were not present, and whose affent was not bad to the appointment of such affittant. It is not customary in the parish to have such an assistant. The overivers had in their accounts taken credit for twenty pound as paid by them to the said Giles Hooper for a ycar's salary, -MR. Cowper and MR. CLIFFORD in support of the order. The churchwardens and overseers have a riglit to charge every thing necessary for the relief of the poor ; they could not of themselves have judged of the necessity of this office and salary; 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 () Ante, parish. In Rex v. Micklefield (a), lately determined, money pages 78. 239. expended in a law-suit by the consent of the veftry was 260. thought by the Court to be properly raised by a rate; and

the only doubt was, whether there had been a veitry. It may be said, that, if the parish be too large, separate over

be appointed; but the policy of the statut 13. & () Vide ante, 14. Car, 2. c. 12. is now disapproved of(b), and the Court pages 2. & 13. does not encourage the division 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 tho 43. Eliz. C. 2. That statute has provided for the appointment of overseers, and the veltry have nothing to do with them or their accounts, The purpose of the

tatute in requiring that they shall be fubfiantial housiholders was not increly to secure the money raited, but alíg to throw the burthen of the office on those who are able to bear it. Nobody else is liable; and an order of ap

pointment of overseers, not ftating them to be subfiantial. () Vide ante, householders,” is bad (c). The poorer part of the parish are P45€ 4. exempted from this burthen by the itatute; but if this

order he supported, it will be thrown upon them indirectly, for the salary is to be paid out of the poor rates, that is, by taxation of every inhabiiant: and it would not be without inconvenience, for the veftry would have a place in picifgift, and there would always be a contested election,

feers may

This is not like the case of Micklefield, where the law-suit &cxv.WELCH. was agreed to by the veftry; there the act of the veftry would be good evidence that the officers had laid out tlae. parith money in a law-fuit properly, which they may do, but in no cale can they give a falary to an alliftant overseer properly. There are but three overseers; if they are not fufficient, four may be appointed; fo there is no occasion to divide the parish.-LORD MANSFIELD. It is a hard cafe upon these 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 burthen; but the statute meant to throw it on the overseers, and that they should do it without fee or reward.-MR. BEAR CROFT said it was hard, and, on the recommendation of the Court, he would undertake that the twenty pound should be allowed, and each party pay their own cofts, on the order being quafhed.- Order quafhcd. 305.'

Řex v. Egginton, Trinity; 26. Geo. 3. 1. Term A specific fum 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

overseer of the ruptcy, which was on the fifth of December 1785; but

poor is not such his accounts were not made out till the Eafter following ; 'a debe as can be and he had afterwards been committed (a) to Worceļter proved under a gaol by two-justices, for not paying over the four pounds commission of as the balance of his accounts:-ERSKİNE moved on a


against him, former day (6) for a rule to shew cause why a writ of ha- before his ac. beas corpus should not issue, directed to the gaoler at IVor-counts are de. cester, commanding him to bring up the defendant, in livered in, order that he might be discharged out of custody, on the (a) 17 Geo. 2. ground that this sum for which he had been cominitted c. 38. to gaol, was a debt existing previous to tbe bankruptcy, and (6) Tuesday, might have been proved under the commillion; and the June 2-th, defendant had since obtained his certificate.-But THE Court, on account of the situation of the defendant, who was not able to bear the expence of it, dispensed with the necesiity of bringing him up by habeas corpus, and granted a rule to shew cause why the defendant should not be dilcharged out of custody - CALDECOTT now shewed cause, and contended, that as the defendant was not compellable to give in his accounts till fourteen days after Eater, this Tum which he had received in his character as overseer was not a debt due at the time when the aft of bankruptcy was committed. That it was impoflible for any parishioner to have sworn in December 1785, which was prior to the time when the defendant's accounts were delivered in, to the existence of any debt, much less could he have tworn to the quantum of such debt. This therefore was not a



« PreviousContinue »