The National Register.
London, England, 1815-11-12 00:00:00

SATURDAY.

A entionis case of settlement came on to be argued before the
Court, mina) an Appeal from the Quarter Sessions. The pauper
whose settlement was the subject of discussion was a soldier, and
had deserted, and under these circumstances went to his wife for
concealment, who hired the tenement, from the neertpation of which
the pauper now claimed a settlement. The husband was concealed
in the home for seven weeks, but was not known to the landlord,
or to any other person in the place, except his own family. This
crettpation, Mr. Scarlet contended, however, gave the pauper a
!•ettlenient, even allowing that he was not known at all to the land.
lord. His witehired the house as his agent, and he submitted, that
the parish officers could not have removed him, and would have
been bound to relieve him after the forty days were expired, had he
required it.

The Court, however, held, that this was no settlement for the
pauper. The wife did not take the tenement as the agent of her
husband, but as a single woman, it not being known that he was in
existence. This could not be called a settlement. The husband,
who had only perched there as a resting place in his flight from the
performance of those duties he owed to his Sovereign, had he dared
to have ventured forth from his hiding place, it is probable, if the
parish officers had not removed him, the serjeanta of the regiment
would have done so, and that very quickly.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WESTSSINSTER, No

ifirrcirAm COMMON.

Cltmuzit V. PENNINGToN.
Mr. Sergeant lest moved for rule to spew cause why there
not be a new blot in this case, on the ground that it was a
against evidence. It was an action under the General Inc
Act, to ascertain the boundary of the parishes of Beddingh
---, in the county of Surrey. There were two issues,
first was to ascertain whether the boundary set out by the Commis-
sioners WWI light ; the second was to prove the boundary so-set out
was not right, and that it ought to be shorter. . The first boundar
took about three hundred acres from Mitcham Common. The
found for the Commissioners' line. The great support of his
was au objettion to the sort of evidence on which the verdict
st it'd. Evidence was received which ought not to have been
eived. The C mmissioners produced depositions taken in
eery suit. in which Sir Nicholas Carey was plemtiff, and
Tillotson Dean of Canterbury, defendant Doctor Tithition
at the same time in Canterbury, and on that account his e\
could not apply to the dispute at Mitcham.—There Weie
parish of Mitcham, the manors of Mitcham, Biplane, and
worth, Foshan, and Ravenbury. The plaintiff, Sir Nicholas'
was Lord of the Manor of Ravenbury;. Doctor Tillotson, was
of the Manor of Poxbal/. The depositions of these persons,
arose out of a bill filed in 168*, were not applicable to the
between the plaintiff and the defendants, and inadmissible, because
the original bill out of which the depositions arose could not
domed.
The Court expressed an opinion, that it bad been customary
receive such evidence.
Mr. Sergeant Best then observed, that this case was of considers.

husband,
from the
he dared
,le, it the
regiment
;ov. 8.
re should
verdict
inclosure
igton and a
lies; the
Commis- a
o-set out
mundary
The Jury
k mot ion
ict could
been re-
a Chao-
Doctor
son lived
fc
evidence
to
le in the
ind Tam- EC
is Carey, hi
vas Lord ar
which an
e dispute di
, beesose Sil
t be pro• yo
ornery to eft
Er
Madera. col
NOlmom