The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-27 00:00:00

KIRKDALE COUNTY SESSIONS.-YESTERDAY

THE OVERSEERS OF TARVIN V. THE OVERSEERS OF PARR.
Mr. Hulton appeared for the appellants, and Dr. Brown
for the respondents.
This was an appeal against an order made by Richard
Edwards, Esq., and Charles Orrell, Esq., county magis-
trates, for the removal of a pauper, named Job Lee, from
Parr to Tarvin.
Dr. BROWN stated the case for the respondents, and
called witnesses to prove that the pauper, Job Lee, had ob-
tained a settlement, by birth, in the township of Tarvin.
John Leighton, governor of the workhouse of Sutton, said,
that previous to the removal of Job Lee to Tarvin he was of
unsound mind, and, was not able to give any account of his
place of settlement, and that he was much the same now.
Mr. HULTON said—His learned friend had proved a sort
of prima facie case of settlement in Tarvin ; but, although
the birth and christening of the pauper had been proved, he
still doubted that the cottage was really and truly in the
township of Tarvin. It might be in the parish of Tar-
vin ; but as there were several townships in that parish
which supported their own poor, the question to be decided
was, whether it was in the parish of Tarvin or one adjoining.
If the court was not satisfied that the respondents had proved
that it was in the township of Tarvin, then its decision must
be given in favour of the appellants. But the settlement on
which he (Mr. Hulton) should rely was stated in the notice
of the appellants, and he would read it to them—this was a
settlement on Haydock Green; and the grounds were, that
Job Lea married a woman named Ruth Weave, then a yearly
tenant in a cottage on Haydock Green, and resided there
some years after the marriage. This the parties did not deny,
but he would call before them a person, the daughter of Ruth
Gleave by a former marriage, to prove this fact. It did not
depend upon the payment of a rental of £lO a-year. if his
learned friend endeavoured to prove that it did, he would
refer to a decision upon an appeal against an order of two
justices for the removal of a pauper, in which the order was
confirmed at the sessions. The pauper's wife, being at the
time a widow, took a house and garden in another parish
at a rental of £3 per annum, went into the house immediately
after taking it, and married the pauper, who continued to
reside there. Lord Tenterden and Justice Bailey had decided
that this was a class of cases which were not ruled by the
statutes requiring a certain amount of rent to be paid by
,7nants, to obtain a settlement ; but that " a man marrying
%woman, then a yearly tenant of premises under the value
°E XlO, gains a settlement." If he proved in this case that
the woman took leasehold premises—of whatever value he
Cared not—if her husband married her after becoming such
tenant, and resided there forty days afterwards, then the
ease must be quashed. In this case, however, there was
some little difficulty as to the means of proof. A subpoena
had been served upon the daughter of Ruth Gleave in that
room ; but lie understood that, at the time the subpoena was
served upon her, some party—he believed the overseer of
Parr—endeavoured to persuade her she was not bound by it,
and the consequence was that she was not then in court.
However, if he called " spirits from the vasty deep," and
they did not answer, he hoped the court would grant a res-
Pite.—He then called Thomas Gardner, who proved the
serving of. the subpoena.
Shortly afterwards Ann Riley came into court, and, do
being called to the witness-box, was examined by Mr. Hut,
TON.—Her mother had lived in a cottage in Haydock two
years previously to her marriage with Lee, and seven years
subsequently. Did not know Mr. Leigh, the landlord.
Did not know what rent was paid ; believed very little. Did
not know who was Mr. Leigh's steward. Never saw the
rent paid, and did not know when it was paid.
A desultory conversation followed, as to the exact locality
of the cottage occupied by Lee, which ended very unsatik-
factorily.
Dr. BROWN contended that his learned friend had failed
in establishing his case.
The CHAIRMAN said that an occupation by the widow
Gleave had been proved for two years, and after her mar-
riage with Lee for seven years ; but that the appellant had
failed in proving a tenantcy. The court, therefore, confirmed
the decision of the magistrates.
JOHN BALL V. THE MAGISTRATES OF LANCASHIRE.
This was an appeal against the decision of Richard Ley-
land and Christopher Lawson, Esquires, by which the ap-
pellant John Ball had been convicted of encroachment on
the highway, under the 63d and 69th section of the highway
act.

Mr. Wilkins appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Hulton
for the respondents.
Mr. HULTON read extracts from the highway act, specify-
ing that no building, fence, or ditch, should be constructed
within 15 feet from the centre of the road. He then stated
that Mr. Ball was the owner of a house at the distance of 11
feet from the centre of the road ;' and put in several plans
shewing the position of the house, and the enclosure, which
he contended was an encroachment. This had been impro-
perly enclosed for a long time, probably 20 or 30 years. Mr.
Ball had been in the habit of placing his dung in such a po-
sition as that it sometimes overflowed into the road; this
was complained of, and in consequence lie erected a new en-
closure, which, even supposing the ditch to be the boundary,
had encroached over what was not in a line with the highway,
and which was marked in the plan by the increased width of
ditch. The learned counsel concluded by saying that Mr.
Ball had come 6 feet further into the road than he ought to
have done ; that the law of the case in the words of the sta-
tute were very precise ; and that if the jury were of opinion
the appellant had done so, the conviction must be confirmed.
Mr. Richard Sumner, surgeon, of Formby, examined.—
Was one of the surveyors of highways last year. The width
of the road opposite the encroachment was 18 feet. Enclosure
was put up in October last. Between this and the house
there was a dung-heap. Two loaded carts meeting in this
particular place could not pass.
Cross-examined by Mr. Vl' ILKINS.—He could not say who
was carrying on the case for the respondents. Was not there
On subpoena, but at the solicitation of Mr. Miles Formby.
During 15 years that he had known the premises in front of
Mr. Ball's house, they had always been used by Mr. Ball's
tenant for manure, but further. The road was not benefitted
by the fence being put up : there was not sufficient width.
He considered the road reached up to the building. The
fence was not in a line with the termini of the ditch. It
came further out than the old take-in. It came further into
the road than the old ditch, but not to the full ex-
tent. This encroachment was made in consequence of
a former complaint, in order to prevent the filth from
the dungheap getting into the road. The encroachment
made by Mr. Bond, the tenant of Mr. Ball, made the road
narrower. Did pot know whether the road had been en-
eroaehed upon by Mr, Marshall on the opposite side. Thos.
Marshall and himself
hillyfied up the ditch at the north end a
few inches. During
ear of office he had repaired the
s
roads, Did not recollect the road opposite to Mr. Ball's
house being repaired before be did it in February or March
last. The complaint was laid against Mr. Ball on the 6th
March. The alteration or ditch was not made to suit the
purpose of this information ; he did it to better the road.
By Mr, HULTON—The ditch for 8 or 10 yards is ra uch
wider than at other parts. The water from the dung-heap
runs out, and as it is considered good manure, the farmers
clean it out, which widens the ditch. The old encroachment
is the garden opposite the house.
Robert Sutton examined—He
lived in Formby. Was 70
years of age. Recollects the road in question for about 60
years. Did not recollect the garden being taken in.
Mr. said that was the case.
Mr. I.Vnittris.—My learned friend says that is his case.
With all deference he has made out no case at all. The
conviction against which we appeal is, that the appellant en-
croached upon the carriage-way, by making a certain fence
within 15 feet from the centre. He contended that the act
specifying that " if any person encroach by making- or causing
to be made any building, hedge, ditch. or other fence
the carriage-way, within fifteen feet from the cent" re of
the road, should be subject to a penalty of 40s. and
su forth, was not applicable in all cases, inasmuch as it
implied a necessity that all roads should be 30 feet wide, He
proved that the old ditch was part of the appellant's pro-
perty, and not part of the highway ; that in consequence of
a complaint having been made, the fence had been raised,
and that the appellant had not gone a single inch beyond his
own land.
Mr. HuLTON then endeavoured to prove that the new enclosure
had gone beyond the old one.
The CHAIRMAN was of opinion that this was not the case, If
he wished to build a wall to his land, he should build it outside the
ditch. With regard to the old encroachment, it had been for 50 or
60 years as it is, and he considered the appellent entitled to it.
Conviction quashed:
Mr. Witicuvs applied to be allowed the costs, which were, how-
ever, refused.