Star.
London, England, 1822-01-19 00:00:00

SUR:REY sEssrozys.

• -*-
The Doott was occupied during the forenoon
yesterday, ih hearing
parish appeals. The case
Ilford v. Lingford was argued at considerable length
by Mr. TtheroN, for the respondents, and Mr.
for thiapPillants. It was a case of considetible in-
terest to.parishes, on which the Judges of the Court
of King's Bench were divided in opinion, and referred
back to the Sessions for a. rehearing. The question
was, whether a servant, who had been hired by the
month, became entitled to a settlement as a pauper
in the parish where he or she should so serve for up-
wards of a twelvemonth? •
The pauper, Mary Webb, stated, that she had been
hired by a Mrs. Tyrrell4 a farmer's wife, at Ilford,
on the 10th of January, 100, for a month, for which
she was to receive eight shillings wage,. The mis-
tress, however, as it appeared in the course of the
case, was fearful'that she should lose the services of
the girl during the summer, when better wages could
be obtained by harvesting, and therefore immediately
after made a new agreement, by which the girl was
to continue with her during the summer, on the terms
of a month's warning
.or a month's wages. The girl
continued in this service until the Ist of March in the
following year, when' it happened that she had a
child, and was turned away, and as her month did
not expire until the 10th, her mistress gave her a
month's wages. She had before received her wages
at Christmas and Lad ytide.
Mr. HEATH argued, at considerable length, that
this was a hiring from month to month, which did
not entitle the pauper to a settlement at Ilford.
Mr. TuaroN, with much force and ingenuity, ud-
dressed the Court in behalf of the respondent parish,
contending that this was a hiring for a genet al inde-
finite period, and should be legally considered a gene-
ral hiring that entitled the pauper to a settlement.
The Cover, after a long consultation, decided, by
a majority of one only, that a hiring on the terms of
a month's warning or a month's wages, was a good
service, and entitled the pauper to her settlement in
the parish of Ilford.
John Bagshot and Charles Baldock were- indicted
for having stolen two pieces of bacon, the property
of George Hunt, a shopkeeper, in Kent-street. The
prisoners went, on the 21st of December, to the shop
of the prosecutor, in the middle of the day, and con-
trived to abstract two large pieces of bacon. They
were pursued, and both secured with the property in
their possession. They had, it appeared, both been
flogged, and drummed out of a regiment, and this
was their first speculation on being set at large. The
Jury found the prisoners Guilty, and the Court sen-
tenced each to be transported for seven years.
Ann Blanchard was charged with having stolen a
leather purse, the property of Margaret Bradley.
The prosecutrix lived in China-walk, Lambeth.—
The prisoner had worked for her several years as a
char-womaa. The prosecutrix is superannuated, and
was in bed on the 19th instant, when the prisoner
made herself extremely busy about the bed where the
old Lady lay. Soon afterwards the latter missed her
pockets, which had been taken from under her, and in
which wits a leather purse, containing in sovereigns
and silver ES. 15s. She called up a person to her as-
sistance after the prisoner had left the room, and in
about half an hour she was charged with the theft,
which she strongly denied; but, upon examining her
person, the pockets with the purse were found upon
her. The money, however, was never recovered.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty; and the Court
sentenced her to be imprisoned for six months, and
kept to hard labour, in the House of Correcticn.