The Sun.
London, England, 1836-12-17 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX SEgtSIONS, DEC. 15.

THE NEW POOP. LAW.—PARISH OF ST. PANCRAS V. ST,
GEORGE'S-TN-THE-EAST.
Mr. BODKIN said, the question in this case was one ol
considerable importance arising out of the construction to be
put upon the 79th clause of the Poor Law Amendment
Act. The clause ran—" And be it further enacted, that
no poor person shall be removed or removable, by reason
of his being chargeable to or relieved therein, until 21
• clays after a notice in writing of his being so charge-
able or relieved, accompanied by a copy or counterpart
of the order of removal of such person, and by a copy
of the examination upon which such order was made, shall
have been sent, by post or otherwise, by the overseers or
guardians of the parish obtaining such order or any
three or more of such overseers er guardians, to the over-
seers of the parish to whom such order shall he directed ;
provided always, that if such overseers or guardians as
last aforesaid, or any three or more Of such guardians,
shall, by writing under their hands, agree to submit to
such order, and to receive such poor person, it shall 'be
lawful to remove such poor person according to the
tenour of such order, although the said period of 21
days may not have elapsed. Provided also, that if
notice of appeal against such order of removal shall
be received by the overseers or guardians of the parish
from which such poor person is directed in such order
to be removed within the said period of 21 days, it
shall not be lawful to remove such poor persons until after
the time for prosecuting such appeal shall have expired,
or, in case such appeal shall be duly prosecuted, until after
the final determination of such appeal." The object of the
Legislature in framing this clause was evidently to prevent
the removal of a pauper, until it was fairly ascertained that
he was legally chargeable to the parish to which it was
proposed to convey him. It was also clear that the in-
tention of the framers of the bill was to avoid putting the
parishes to the unnecessary expense of removing a pauper
who, it was subsequently proved, was not possessed of a
settlement in the parish he was sent to, and the conse-
quent additional expense which arose by his being taken
back again. In the present. case, an order of removal
had been made to remove a pauper to the parish of St.
Pancras, with the customary notice of 21 days, before the
expiration of which term they wrote a letter of submission
to the order, upon which the pauper was removed to and
recived by them. The parish, however, after having main-
tained the pauper for some time, gave notice of ap-
peal. Now, one. question which would arise for the con 7
sideration of the bench would be, whether from nay informa-
tion a parish chanced to obtain after the period of the 21
days specified in the act had elapsed, they were entitled to
open the matter again in the form of an appeal. He should
submit, that the letter of submission, by which the justice
of the order was distinctly admitted, must be taken quite
as conclusive as though the order had been made and con-
firmed upon appeal, and therefore that the appellants were
not in a condition to be heard upon appeal. The appel-
lants, too, it must be recollected, had the full opportunity
of examining the paupers under the Powers given them by
the Act of Parliament prior to their writing the letter of
submission. Under all the circumstances, therefore, he
should- trust that the bench would be of opinioll that the
appellants were estopped. • -
Mr. ADOLPHUS, for the appellants, contended that they
were perfectly right in their proceedings. His Learned
Friend had taken especial care to avoid entering upon
the facts of the case, and therefore the necessity of
going into a detail devolved upon himself. The sim-
ple outline of the case was this :—An order had been
made for the removal of a pauper named Arabella
Penn who it was proved had lived upwards of twelve
months in the Parish of St. Pancras. The officers insti-
tuted the usual inquiries, which led to the result he bad
just stated, and the writing of the letter of submission. But
after the removal, -it turned out that they had recei,:ed
Arabella Vince, and not Arabella Penn, in whose name
the order was made out. A further
.estigation took
place, by which it appeared that A
married to a man named Vince, '7'auella Penn had been
t thataine ttl b
e y anotherougt
ought
ent tol et by which act she had ob-
tteerre.forTehtishefayetcotinieteynidmedd
arrived at under sni-oewlint singular circumstances ; the
pauper was rat: tiCenlvde
dtsl;meti of a child, and the parish made an
attempt ig affiliate the child upon the reputed father.
That individual, however, defended himself from the affi- I
%idol' by showing that the mother was a married woman.
He submitted, therefore., that it would be an act of the
greatest injustice tv4 saddle the appellants with the pauper,
when she had ob,tainea another settlement by virtue of her

marriage,
The CI AIRMAN said the question was one of very great
public importance, both as regarded the parties more im-
mediately concerned, and the results to which the proceed-
ings upon that occasion might lead. The question really
was, in the first instance, whether the letter of submission
was to be taken as final—whether it was to be regarded as
conclusive and tantamount to an affirmation of te order
by the sessions. The appellants were bound to make every
inquiry respecting the pauper.
Mr. ADOLPIIUS said that every inquiry had been made.
Of that filet they Were prepared with ample proof.
Th. CHAIRMAN—The word's with regard to inquiry were
in the Both clause, and ran thus :—" That the overseers or
guardians of the parish giving such notice of appeal, or
their attorney, or any other person authorized by them,
shall, until such appeal shall haie been heard and decided,
at all proper times have free access to such poor person for
the purpose of examining him touching his settlement" and
so on. The intention of the Act, therefore, was that the
parties upon whom the order was made should have every
opportunity of making inquiry. Then the question was
whether such inquiry had been made in the present case
before they sent their letter of submission ; and then again,
whether having sent that letter they must not be taken to
have agreed to the justice of the order.

Mr.-Anomies would ask the Court whether they
thought the Act would regard Arabella Vince as being the
same as Arabella Pean ? He must confess that, in his opi-
nion, it would not.

The CHAIRMAN—What would be the consequence, if
the Bench heard the appeal, and it should turn out that,
under the circumstances they had no jurisdiction ? The
question was one of extreme importance, not only as af-
fected that case, but as related to the construction of the
clause in the Act of Parliament, and upon their decision
probably they might have 100 other cases brought before
them.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS inquired whether he had dis-
tinctly understood that at the time the notice of the order
was g►ven in the name of Arabella Penn, she was married
to a man of the name of Vince ?
Mr. ADOLPHUS—Yes.

Mr. Sergeant ANDREWS—Arabella Penn might have
been received, but haring married Vince, she had changed
her responsibility.

TheCHAIRMAN—At the time the order was made, the
person to be removed was represented as being a single wo-
man of the name of Penn, and the person was accordingly re-
moved ; but it was subsequently discovered that she was a
married woman. That was the simple fact. The sole ques-
tion, then, for the bench to consider was, whethei the effect of
the words of the statute, viz., " Provided always that if such
overseers or guardians, or any three of them, shall by writing,
agree to submit to such order, and to receive such poor per-
son; was to be taken as being tantamount to an affirma-
tion by the sessions. The clause in the act of Parliament
%vas defective upon that point, inasmuch as it left the ques-
tion to a certain extent open and undecided, for it said
that the pauper might be removed upon the receipt of a
letter of submission, unless notice of appeal were given
but it did not go on to say that any such letter of sub-
mission was to be held in the same light, and as conclusive,
as though the sessions had affirmed an appeal. Supposing
the bench were to refuse to hear the appeal, the parish
would apply to the Court of King's Bench for a mandows,
and if they were wrong in declining to proceed with the
appeal, that Court would direct them to do so, 'fiat step
would at once satisfactorily put the question at rest. He
thought-the bench had no jurisdiction in the matter as it
stood. Supposing the Court of King's Bench were to de-
termine that the construction of the statute was not that
which, gave them jurisdiction, what would lee the conse-
quenee if the bench were upon the present occasion to hear
the appeal and quash the order 14
Mr. ADOLPHus did not think it proper, particularly in
the piesent economising times, to put the parish to the ex-
pense of going to the Court of King's Bench. He contended
that the case was sufficiently elute upon its own facts.
There was a pauper removed by elle name,
she bore another,
when in reality
The CHitiltmAN said, they ought to have made the pro-
pel, inquiries before they had written the letter of stthmission.
Mr. Anotenus submitted they had done so. They had
the deposition of Arabelte Penn, when in fact there was no
such person%
OfkittuNlAN Saw nothing in this Quo to take it out
or the general construction of the AO. He thought it to
be a case of considerable denbt, hut the impression upon
his mind was, that ha letter of submission was intended by
the 90p, to operate as conclusive, and as though the
parties had come to that Court with an appeal, and the
order, after both sides had beekA heard, had been affirmed.
The BENcEi thelA
cleci*ki upon the question as to whether
they )14s.c.Awd the right of heaving the appeal, when there
appeared to be six against and two ihr the bearing.
The conirt O.IAI Adjauened.

fiord Alexander Russell will pass the holidays,
With Lord and Lady Wriothesly Russell, at, chekAkok,. fear
Bedford.

The Earl of Rim 4,t C.:n:lton Gardens on
Wednesday fiym Nyno.nds wh,ere Lozaship will reside
until Vepurs and iinprovenkents at his villa at Putney
arc com3/4)100,