The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1881-04-09 00:00:00

THE STOURBRIDGE OBSERVER.

TEE "PRINCESS ALICE" DISASTER-
AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

In the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Divi-
sion, before Justices Lindley and Mathew, the cause of
"The Queen v. Edwards" has been heard. This was
a special case stated by the ohaixman of the West Kent
Quarter Sessions raising the question whether the
parish of Woolwich, in the county of Kent, should be
liable or a sum of £1,200 for the expenses resulting
from the accident to the Princess Alice. The case
set out that out of the 600 persons who were drowned
on that occasion 120 dead bodies were buried by the
churchwardens and overseers of. Woolwich, after
having been collected by steamers and boats and
conveyed to Woolwich Dockyard. By Statute 48
Geo. 111., c. 75, sec. 1, it was enacted that the
churchwarden and overseers of respective parishes
throughout England in which any dead human body
should be found thrown in or cast on shore by the sea,
by wreck or otherwise, should be required, upon
notice that such bodies were lying within the bounds
of their parish, to cause such bodies to be buried with
all convenient speed at such expense as should not
exceed that allowed for the burial of any person
buried at the expense of the parish. By Section 6of
the same Act, it was provided that any one justice
of the peace for the county in which such bodies
should have been removed and buried should be
empowered by any writing under his hand to order
the treasurer for the county to reimburse the church-
wardens and overseers for the expenses so entailed,
and the treasurer for the county was thereby autho-
rised to pay such expenses and charge them in his
account; and by sec. 7 it was enacted that if the
churchwardens and overseers of the parish should
refuse to receive or remove such bodies they
would be liable for a sum of £5 for every Offence.
The question was first brought before Rear-Admiral
Robertson acting as a justice of the peace for the
county of 'Kent, and he refused to make the order
upon the treasurer of the county to pay expenses.
An appeal was then made to the Quarter Sessions
held at Maidstone on the 2nd January, 1879, when
the magistrates dismissed the appeal with costs, sub-
ject to the present case now stated for the opinion of
the Queen's Bench Division. The main question now
raised was whether the river at Woolwich was the sea
within the meaning of the Act, and secondly, whether
the county was liable for expenses connected with the
burial of bodies other than those which could have
been proved to have been "cast or left on shore" by
the sole action of the river as distinguished from bodies
intentionally brought onshore.
Sir Hardinge Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Wildey Wright
appeared for the appellants ,_the overseers of Wool-
wich'; and Mr. Meadows White, Q.C., and Mr.
Douglas Kingsford respresented the respondents, the
authorities for the county of Kent.
Mr. Justice Lindley, in giving judgment, said
it might be Etppposed from the mere reading of
the Act that there was an obligation on parishes
to bury bodies found on the land, but it now ap-
peared that it was not so, though probably it was sup-
posed to be so at the time of the statute. Hence it had
only reference to bodies "cast on shore from the sea,"
and so it must be shown, to bring the case within the
Act, that the bodies were "cast on shore from the sea."
Now, sea " was always contrasted with rivers, and
so it was in all statutes; 'nor was there any instance of
a statutory enactment including the river within the
term " sea " without some express words or context to
show it to be so intended; but here it was not so. No
doubt, the place would be within the Admiralty
jurisdidtion but that extended to rivers below bridge.
The place here was stated to be 30 miles from "the
sea, and certainly was not "the sea," and hence it
was clear that the case could not come within the
Act.

Mr. Justice Mathew agreed, observing that the
Court was not calla on to decide as to the statutory
obligation of the parish to bury the bodies, but only
as to their right to be reimbursed the expense. That
depended iu the first instance on the meaning of the
word "sea," and it seemed to be used here in its ordi-
nary popular sense, as distinguished from river, and
not as including the river. That being so, it was
clear that the case would not came within the statute.
Judgment, therefore, against the parish, the appel-
lants.

The result is that the parish will have to bear the
expense they have incurred in burying the bodies, and
will not be reimbursed by the county.

A SPINSTER ON THE CENSUS.
The Census is past, and how hard it appears,
When I've been thirty-five for the space of ten years,
To find out, while my relatives heartlessly roar.
That I've had to confess to an honest three-score.
—Punch.