The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-06 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

MAIDSTONE, AIONDAY, AUGUST 4.
CIVIL SIDE.—WILLS V. OSBORNE.
This was an action on the 55th tieo. 111. cap. 107, to recover
from the defendant a penalty of 1001., for supplying the poor
of the parish of Sutton Valence with provisions, whilst he filledthe office of overseer. It appeared that the defendant was ap--
pointed, in 1822, by an order of vestry, to the office of assistant
overseer of the poor, at a salary of 301. per annum. The con.
troul and management of the parish funds was vested in the vestry
and the regular overseers, the defendant's being the hand to pay
money under their orders. The defendant kept a huxter's ahoy--
at Sutton Valence, and it was proved that during the last year
several paupers applied to him for relief. With the sanction
of the vestry different weekly sums were allowed for their main.
tenance ; but the defendant, instead of paying them in money,
obliged them to take the amount in goods for sale in his
shop, such as butter, cheese, bread, fuel, ite. In one instance,
where a poor woman, in ill-health, required some mutton-broth,
and her husband was desirous of a few shillings to buy the meat
to make it, the defendant refused to give any money, and in-'
'sited upon his taking goods. Since the commencement of this
action, this practice had ceased, and now the paupers were paid
in money.. Under these circumstances, it was contended that
the case was within the terms and the policy of the salutary
statute above-mentioned.
Mr. MARRYAT contended, that the plaintiff must be non.
suited, and raised two points first, that there was a variance-
between the evidence andthe declaration ; and second, that the
defendant was not oneof the class of persons enumerated in the
statute, upon whom the penalty could attach. As to the first
objection, the declaration described the defendant as a person
having the controul, order, direction, and management of the
affairs of the poor of the parish ; the fact being, that the con-
troul, order, direction, and management, was vested in the over-
seers and vestry. He was merely an assistant overseer, and
consequently he was not properly described. Then, as to the
second objection, the defendant being an assistant overseer, he
was not within the penalties of the act; but supposing him to
be so, there was no proof of his appointment by two justices, as
reldred by the 59th George Ili., which empowered the ap-
pomtment of assistant overseers and other parish officers. Here
the defendant was only appointed by an order of vestry, not
confirmed by two justices, and the order did not point out the
duties of his office. He cited "1 H. Blackstone's Reports,"
162 ; and " Stanley v. Dodd ;" 2 Dowling and Ityland's Term
Reports, 756.
Mr. GURNEY, in reply, was stopped by
Mr. Baron GRAHAM, who expressed the strong inclination
of his opinion that there was nothing in either of the objections.
In the first place, the defendant was well described, as a per-
son having the controul, order, direction, and management or
the affairs of the poor; and second, having acted as an assistant
overseer, it was unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove the valid-
ity of his appointment in order to bring him within the opera-
tion of the statute. The Learned Judge, therefbre, directed a
verdict for the plaintiff, with one penalty of 1001. with liberty
to the defendants to enter a nonsutt upon both points.