The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-01 00:00:00

UNION-HALL.

Yesterday Samuel May, a master carpenter at Rother-
hithe, was summoned by the parochial authorities of that
parish for neglecting to contribute to the maintenance of
his father, an old man, to whom relief had been afforded by
the guardians.
Mr. Wallace, one of the overseers, stated that the de-
fendant's father had applied at the workhouse for relief, in
consequence of being unable to work from paralysis of the
hands. On examining into the case of the applicant, and
it being ascertained that he was an object of commiseration,
owing to the affliction, he was relieved ; but, upon subse-
quent inquiry, it was found that the defendant (his son)
was in circumstances to support the old man, or at least
to contribute something towards it. Upon this fact being
ascertained, immediate application was made to him to re-
fund the money advanced by the parish, but he not only
refused to acquiesce with the request, but he also expressed
his inability to contribute any thing to his future main-
tenance. The overseer added that, in consequence of the
refusal of the defendant, the parochial authorities directed
him to be summoned, with a view that an order might be
made upon him, and, in the event of his non-compliance,
to have him punished.
Mr. TRAILL inquired what sum the parish allowed the old
man ? The overseer replied that he had a shilling a week.
Mr. TRAILL—Surely he can't support existence on so
small a sum.

The overseer said that since the old man lost the use of
his hands he occasionally went on errands for people, and
made a trifle by that, and when he applied at the work-
house he said thac if his son allowed him a shilling a week
that he would try and make that do. The son, however,
refused, and his only resource then was his application to
the workhouse.

Mr. TAAILL—What is the defendant ? The overseer
said that he was a master carpenter, doing business on his
own account. _ _ _

Mr. TRAILL then asked the defendant why lie refused
to repay the money advanced by the parish to his father.
He was bound by law to maintain his parent. The de-
fendant said that although be was in business for himself,
vet that it was of so trifling a kind that he was often com-
pelled to do journeyman's work himself. He could not af-
ford to do anything for his father.
Mr. TRAILL inquired whether the parish officers bad as-
certained the defendant's earnings ? The Overseer said that
he lived in a good house, dressed well, and appeared to be
in comfortable circumstances, but that they could not ascer-
tain what his income was. _

Mr. TRAILL here asked the defendant the question, and
his reply was that his business as a master was very small,
and that between it and his journeywork he was sure he
did not average more than 28s. per week.
Mr. TAAILL—What family have you? Defendant—l
am a widower, and have one child that I am obliged to sup-
port, and can't maintain my father.
Mr. WEDGWOOD—You have just as much right to main-
toin your father as your child.
Mr. TRAILL—I shall make the order for you to pay the
shilling a week, and to refund the money paid to your father.
The Magistrate having done this, said he never saw a man
exhibit less feeling for a parent than the defendant did
throughout the case.