The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-09 00:00:00

STANLEY V. DODD.

Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a rule to show cause
why a new trial Should not be granted in this case, or why the
judgment should not be arrested. It was an action on 5.5 Geo.
lir. c. 137, sec. 8, which provides that " no churchwaiden or
overseer of the poor, or other person in whose hands the collec-
tion of the rates for the relief of the poor, or till) providing for,
ordering, management, or direction of the poor of any parish
shall or may be placed, shall provide for his. own profit any
goods, materials, or provisions, for the support and maintenance
of the poor in any parish for which he shall he appointed" under
the penalty of lOW. The defendant was charged with having in.
curred the penalty of this clause, because he being a governor of
the poor of the parish of Bethnal-green, supplied the workhouse
of that parish with milk. The case has been twice tried, and at
the last trial before the Lord Chief Justice at Westminster, a ver-
dict was found for the plaintiff. This verdict the7Solicitor-General
nqw sought to set aside, on the ground that Mr. Dodd was not
a governor of the moor under the fair construction of the local
Acts for the direction of the paris4 funds, but only a vestry-
man, lie had,
,indeed, qualified, which he was forced to do,
in order to be -a member of the vestry; lint he had never acted
as a governor ; at least, the only way in which he had acted
.was by attending a particular meeting, which was concluded
by a dinner, and which was usually attended very numerously,
not only i)y governors of the poor, but by members of the
vestry. At all events, the judgment ought to be arrested, be-
cause the Act applied only to the providing for the maintenance
of the poor in the-parish, and the workhouse of Bethnal-green
was situated without its boundaries. " •

T.he c.otixT iotimated that the objection to the record, aris-
ing from-the local situation of the workhouse, was quite unten-
able ; but granted .a rule to show cause why there should not
be a new trial, on the doubt suggested respecting the official
character of the defendant.
HEMMING Y. iinLstY. _ _

Mr. CHITTY moved fora rule to show cause why the ver-
dict for the defcndantin this case should not be- set aside and
a new trial granted. It was an action for penalties, on the sta.

PRICE SEVEN rEkz.

tute of Anne, respecting the preservation. off •gaine, containing:
two counts fox using engines, and one count for eiposing.a hare
to sale. It appeared in evidence, that the' defendant, who was
watched by two gamekeepers, was repeatedly &len to 'stoop
down to•the ground,where the snares were placed, and at last, .
when a hare was caught in one of them, to wrap it.up in his
great-coat, and carry it aWay:- The defendant was the servant
of the farmer on whose land the snares- were placed, but it was
distinctly shown that his master had no qualification ..to kill
game. The Learned Judge before whom the case was tried (Mr.,
Justice I'ar4 told the Jury, that if they believed- the defendant-
took the pine to carry it home to his master, they -should
find. their verdict in his favour' and referred .to the, case of..
" Warneford.v. Kendall," 10, East; 19, in support of his doc-
trine. NoW that case decided; that where a person' employed
*to detect poachers took game from a snare.and carried it to the
Lord of the Manor, he had not such an illegal possgssion-as
would bring him within the - legal construction of the "words
" exposing' to sale," becauie he 'derived his authority from"
,a qualified person ;. hut here tii4 Master himself was not qua-
lified, and could bestow no power which lie did, not possess.—
The cases, therefore, were essentially different, and
.the. direc-
tion of the Learned Judge erroneous.—The Court granted *
rule to spew cause.