The National Register.
London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

r NLEY P. DODD.

The Solicitor GeneralMo;eil; set aside the verdict given
in this case fur the plaintiff, and to enter a non-suit. It was an
action to recover peualtiea under the statute of the 55th of Geo.
111. cap. 137, by which persons cousidered churchwardens and
overseers, and guardians of the poor, areprohibiteel from serving
Cie poor with provisions. The action was against the defendant,
tar supplying the w...rkhnuse of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green,
with sink. It was contended at the trial, that the defendant
did not come within the description of persons prohibited from
'applying the poor with provisions. The Solicitor-General was
remly, lie said, to prove the defendant was neither church-
warden, overseer, or guardian of the poor, ur .any way con-
cerned in voiding for, or controuling the affairs of the poor of
the parish. His real situation depended upon the construction
the Court would put upon certain local acts regulating tare parish
of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green. These act■ were the 3d of
Geo. I 11. and the 53d of Ceo. 111. The provisions of the dif-
ferent local acts were cited by the Solicitor-General, who con-
tended that the defendant, notwithstanding he might be a
guardian of the poor under those acts, had never attended any
vestry meetings, or taken part in the parish business in a way
that would niake him subject to the action. The defendant had
met ely attended parish dinners.
The Lord Chief Justice read his notes of the evidence res-
pecting the part the defendant had taken in parish business.—
Ills Lordship read that part of the testimony of one of the wit
tirvvie• which stated, that the parish dinners were generally el-
ected by sixty parlous, but it was difficult to get nine or ten
vestrymen to attend to the parish business. lie observed, that
lie expressed at the trial his expectation that those dinners,
*bid' put the parish to a great expence, would be discontinued.
'I he Court, under all the circumstances, granted a rule to
skew cause why a sunsuit should not lie entered.
The Solicitor General then said, he had not pressed one oh
Jectiots w bleb the case furnished. The 55th Gru. 111. cap. 12,
set forth, that the supplies of provisions must he " for the sup-
port and tu..intensoce of the poor of the parish." if the work-
house which the defendant anified with milk was out of the
of St. Matthew, Bethnal-green, the action could nut
a. ply.

Jost;ee Bajley said, the statute meant the poor of the
p.tislo, sad I,e Com t could not say • workhouse out of the
p .rido was n t nithin the operation of the act.
foe Solicitor General then pee up the last objection, and
&dared 1.. a intention to rely only on the first.

Tilt KIM) V. .10LIFFE.
NIT. Serpent Pell sated, that this w a quo warrant° it•-
tu .1.141C1011, hind torture Mr. Justice Butrough, at Winchester,
ou the defendant to show by what authority he exercised
Via u bee of ',sayer of Peters field ; a vertliwt having been gi% en
for tI. defendant, the learned counsel moved for a rule to show
etas • why is verdict should not be entered for the Crown.—
T.ie ,sue was revectine, the wanner in which persons toted at
th, courts•leei. The defendant acted as steward of the manor.
Cr, the licit be, :qr. Sur; east Pell, contended the residence of
slight to sustain the verdict for the defendant.
Toe Jury found for the defendant under the direction id the
Judos i and toe Cttart was now woad upon a miadirsotion of