Abbildungen der Seite

Spring Gardens, Manchester, manufac- asylum, as mentioned in the said order, turer; Guardians of the poor of the said had ultimately proved to be temporary township of Manchester."

only, and had not, in fact, produced permaThe grounds of appeal were, amongst nent disability. On the trial, two objections others, that no statement under the hands were insisted on by the counsel for the of the guardians of the poor of the town- appellants, as grounds for setting aside ship of Manchester or of any three or the order, namely, that the said pauper had more of such guardians, setting forth the been conveyed to the said asylum by reagrounds of adjudication or the particulars son of his being a lunatic, whose lunacy of the settlement relied on in support of was not of a permanent nature and had the said order, has been sent or delivered produced temporary disability only at the as required by the statute in that behalf, date of the order appealed against, and and that if any such statement has been was such a sickness whereby no warrant so sent or delivered, such statement is de- for his removal could be granted within the fective and bad in not stating the address meaning of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 4, of each of the several guardians by whom and that no order upon the parish of the the same purports to be signed. That no settlement of the said lunatic pauper could legal order was ever made for the removal be made in respect of the expenses in and of the said T. Wood as a lunatic pauper about the examination, removal to, and from the township of Manchester to the maintenance of the said lunatic pauper in county lunatic asylum at Prestwich, in the the said asylum. That the said statement said county of Lancaster, and his removal in writing, setting forth the grounds of to that asylum and the payment of all adjudication and particulars of settlement, expenses in relation thereto, and the costs sent by the guardians of the Manchester of the maintenance of the said T. Wood in Union to the said guardians of the said the said asylum were illegal. That the Halifax Union, was defective and insuffiorder appealed against is bad, inasmuch as cient, inasmuch as it did not state the at the time of the making of such order, address of the said W. Horsfall, one of the and also at the time of the said T. Wood's guardians, by whom the said statement was being conveyed to the said asylum, he signed. was irremovable by reason of the provi- The counsel for the respondents applied sions of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. That the to the said Court of Quarter Sessions to said order is bad, inasmuch as at the time amend the said statement by adding, after of the making thereof, and also at the time the signature of the said W. Horsfall, the of the said T. Wood's being conveyed to description and address of the said W. Horsthe said asylum, he was chargeable to th fall, as given in the said letter sent by the said township of Manchester in respect of attorney of the respondents to the attorney relief made necessary by sickness, which of the appellants. The Court of Quarter would not cause permanent disability in Sessions refused the application, on the the said T. Wood.

ground that it had no power to make such After the service of the grounds of amendment; and after hearing counsel for appeal, on the 21st of December 1855, the the respondents, on the two objections attorney for the respondents sent by post taken by the appellants, held that both the a letter to the attornies of the appellants, objections were valid, and discharged the informing them that the description and order, subject to the opinion of the Court address of the said W. Horsfall were as of Queen's Bench. follows: — “ Calenderer and Maker-up, The questions for the opinion of the Garden Street, Shude Hill, Manchester." Court of Queen's Bench were, whether the

On the trial of the appeal, it was ad- first objection of the appellants was good mitted by the appellants that the pauper and well founded; whether the second was, at the time he became chargeable, and objection was good and well founded; and if thence to the time of the appeal, settled the opinion of the Court on this question be within the appellant township, and by the in the affirmative, whether the Court of respondents that the lunacy, on account Quarter Sessions had power to make the of which the pauper had been sent to the amendment prayed. If the Court of Queen's Bench should be of opinion that the first only to defects in the form of setting out objection was well founded, then the order the grounds of adjudication, including the of Sessions was to be confirmed, and the particulars of settlement. The description order appealed against was to be discharged. and address of the guardians signing is not If the Court of Queen's Bench should be a part of what is meant by “the statement," of opinion that the first objection was not within the meaning of the 107th section of well founded, but that the second objection the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, which is to be was well founded, and that the Quarter looked at strictly. Sessions had not power to make the amend- [COLERIDGE, J.-In that section the word ment prayed, then the order of Sessions “statement” clearly includes the descripwas to be confirmed, and the order ap- tion and address of the guardians, as well pealed against was to be discharged; but as setting forth the grounds of adjudication, if the Court should be of opinion that including the particulars of settlement. neither objection was well founded, or that Description and address is one of the things the second objection only was well found- required to be stated. The Sessions, thereed, and that the Court had power to make fore, had the power to amend.] the amendment prayed, then the order of Monk and Milne, contrà, were not heard. Sessions was to be discharged, and the order appealed against was to be con- Lord CAMPBELL, C.J.—The case for the firmed.

appellants has been well argued, but I Pashley and Maule, in support of the think the points contended for cannot be order of Sessions.-As to the first objec- at all supported. The reasons have been tion raised, it is found in the case, that the stated during the argument, and need not lunacy was not such as in fact produced be repeated. It seems to me quite clear permanent disability, and, therefore, lunacy that neither objection can be supported. being included in the general term “sick- As to the second point, at all events the ness," in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. s. 4, the Sessions had the power to amend, and that pauper would have been irremovable. By is sufficient to make the rule absolute for the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97. s. 102. the expenses quashing the order of Sessions. are cast upon the common fund of the COLERIDGE, J., WIGHTMAN, J. and ERLE, union in case the pauper lunatic would at J. concurred. the time of his removal to the asylum have

Order of Sessions quashed. been exempt from removal to his place of settlement by reason of some provision in the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, and in such case The following case, raising the same question, was no order of maintenance can be made on disposed of immediately after the above decision :the parish of settlement. This must refer to the party being irremovable, if not a

HUNSLET, appellants, AND lunatic,

THE POOR OF THE DEWSBURY UNION, respondents. (LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.—The case finds that the lunacy was curable. But, if at

This was an appeal against an order adjudging

the settlement of a lunatic pauper to be in H, and the time of the conveying the pauper to ordering the overseers of H. to pay the costs of the the asylum the Justices might have had pauper's maintenance, &c. in the county lunatic reasonable ground for thinking that it

asylum, and, by consent of the parties, a special would be permanent, is not that enough to

case was stated for the opinion of this Court.

The material facts of the case were as follows :support this order ?]

The pauper's settlement was admitted to be in H. Then, as to the second point, that the The pauper was conveyed to the lunatic asylum on description and address of one of the the 28th of December 1854, and remained there dians signing the statement of grounds of

until the 6th of September 1855, at the expense of

B. in the D. union, when he was discharged. The adjudication is not given, as required by

order appealed against was made on the 3rd of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97. s. 107.

December 1855. The question raised was, whether (LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-Had not the the said order was not invalid under the 102nd secSessions power to amend?]

tion of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, the appellant con

tending that lunacy was sickness within the meaning The power of amendment given by sec- of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66. 8. 4, and that as the tion 4. of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31. applies pauper's attack of lunacy, which occasioned his





chargeability to the respondents, was shewn to be of after that, at night, duly accounted for the a temporary nature, the said order could not be made

sums as they then stood in his book, keeping upon the place of the pauper's settlement, Price, in support of the order, was stopped.

back the 28. difference :-Held, that in an

indictment for embezzlement the prisoner LORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-This raises the same might be described as the servant of the four question as in the case just decided; and we were all 80 satisfied that the case did not come within the

companies or as the servant of the committee. meaning of the 4th section of the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 61, that we heard only the argument on one side. The

The Recorder of Chester stated this question can hardly be now argued again.

The prisoner was tried and convicted Hall, contrà. If it be taken that the case just heard decides the point raised in this case, it will not

before me, at the last July Sessions for be argued again.

the city of Chester, on a charge of em

bezzlement. The first count in the indictLORD CAMPBELL, C.J.-_That is so; and there ment charged, that the prisoner, on, &c., will be judgment for the respondents.

being then employed as servant of the Great Western Railway Company, did, by virtue of his said employment and

while he was so employed, receive and [CROWN CASE RESERVED.]

take into his possession certain moneys 1856.

to the amount of 2s., for and in the name THE QUEEN 0. BAYLEY. Nov. 15. S

and on the account of the said Great Embezzlement-Master and Servant

Western Railway Company his masters, Delivery Clerk to Several Railway Com

and that he embezzled the same. Another panies.

count, in respect of the same embezzlement,

charged the prisoner as being the servant The Great Western Railway Company of the Great Western Railway Company, and three other railway companies whose the London and North-Western Railway lines meet at C. have a common station there, Company, the Chester and Holyhead under the management of a station committee, Railway Company, and the Birkenhead, composed of some directors of each company. Lancashire and Cheshire Junction RailThis committee appoints, pays and dismisses way Company, and as having received the all servants employed at the station, and money for and in the name and on the among others the delivery clerks who are account of those four companies. A third employed to deliver parcels, arriving at C. count, in respect of the same embezzleby any of the railways, throughout C. and ment, charged him as being the servant its neighbourhood, and to receive the sums of John Williams and seven other persons charged for their carriage, and to pay them named, and as having received the money over at night to the chief clerk in the parcel for and in the name and on the account of office there. The particulars respecting those eight persons. And a fourth count, each parcel are entered in the delivery in respect of the same embezzlement, clerk's book before he delivers them. The charged him as being the servant of Rochief clerk pays over the whole money re- bert Lewis Jones, and as having received ceived from the delivery clerks to the cashier the money for and in the name and on of the station committee, who keeps a separate the account of the said R. L. Jones. There account for each company and daily pays were two other similar sets of counts in reover to each its proportion of the receipts. spect of two other subsequent acts of emThe prisoner, a delivery clerk at C, on a bezzlement. It appeared from the evidence particular day, received among other par- that the general railway station at Chester cels one which came by the Great Western was built upon land in part belonging to line, for which 58. was charged in his book. each of the four railway companies, whose He delivered the parcel and received the lines of railway at the time when it was sum, but he altered the 5s. into 3s., and built ran through or into Chester, namely,

the London and North - Western, the Coram Pollock, C.B., Erle, J., Willes, J.,

Shrewsbury and Chester (since amalgaBramwell, B. and Watson, B.

mated with the Great Western), the ChesThese par

ter and Holyhead, and the Birkenhead, to which it belongs, or to its bankers. The Lancashire and Cheshire Junction Rail- cashier and chief clerk of the parcel-office way Companies; that the station is main- are appointed, paid, and dismissed by the tained at the joint cost of the above-men- general station committee in manner heretioned companies (except that the Great inbefore mentioned. On the morning of Western is now in the place of the Shrews- the 26th of February 1856 two parcels bury and Chester) out of a fund contri- came from London by a train of the Great buted by them in certain agreed propor- Western Railway Company, to the Chester tions, and that it is under the management station, addressed to Messrs. Prichard & of a committee of eight gentlemen, directors Roberts, booksellers, Chester, on which, of these four companies, being the persons according to the way-bill, there were the named in the count thirdly above mentioned, sums of 5s. and 1s. 6d. respectively to two of whom are appointed by each com- pay for the carriage of them. pany, who are called “The General Station cels, with many others, were on that mornCommittee." This committee appoints, ing given to the prisoner for delivery, the dismisses and pays out of the fund above particulars thereof having been entered mentioned, the wages of the officers, clerks, from the way-bills in his delivery book, and other servants who are employed at the in the manner above described. The total station. Amongst these are the delivery amount to pay" for parcels to be deliclerks, whose duty it is to deliver to per- vered by the prisoner on that day was sons in the city of Chester and its neigh- 21. 14s. 11d. ; the total amount which was bourhood parcels which arrive at the accounted for in the delivery-book, and station by the trains of any of the four paid over by him in respect of that day's companies addressed to such persons, delivery, was 1l. 12s. 7d., the balance, to receive from them the sums charged 1l. 2s. 4d., being carried forward to the for the carriage and delivery of such par- next day. The prisoner received from cels, and on the night of the same day to Messrs. Prichard & Roberts the sums of account for and pay over to the chief clerk 5s. and 1s. 6d. in respect of their said in the parcel office the total of the sums parcels, but the sums which, at the time so received by them during the day. For of such accounting and payment appeared the performance of this duty each of the on the face of the delivery book as having delivery clerks has given to him each been charged to and received in respect of morning a delivery book, into which, be- these parcels were 3s. and 1s. 6d., the 3s. fore the parcels are handed to him for having been written by the prisoner on an delivery, the particulars of them are copied erasure of the 5s., and the 1l. 12s. 7d. was in the parcel-office from the several “way- accordingly less by 2s. than the actual bills" of the trains by which they were amount received by the prisoner on that brought to the station. The chief clerk of day. Similar evidence was given with the parcel-office each night gives the deli- respect to other parcels which also came very clerk a receipt in his delivery book by trains of the Great Western Railway for the money actually paid over by him Company, and were delivered by the in respect of the day's receipts, and any prisoner to other persons in Chester on monies due for parcels delivered on that two subsequent days. The chief clerk of day, which the delivery clerk has not been the parcel-office paid over on the same able to collect, are carried forward in his day the monies received by him from the delivery book as a balance to the account prisoner in respect of these parcels to the of the next day. The chief clerk of the cashier of the general station committee, parcel-office, on the same day, pays over and the cashier, on the same day, paid the the monies so received by him to the same to the bankers of the Great Western “ cashier" of the general station commit- Railway Company to the account of the tee, to the account of the several compa- company. Mr. Robert Lewis Jones is the nies to whom the same respectively belongs. “general manager" at the Chester station, The cashier keeps a separate account for and he also is appointed and paid by the each company, and on the same day pays general station committee. He had not the money over directly to the company any power of appointing or dismissing any



of the officers or servants employed at the Parry, Serj. appeared for the prosecustation. Mr. Jones stated in his evidence tion, but was not heard. that in cases of loss by the negligence or embezzlement of a "station servant" the POLLOCK, C.B. - We are all of opinion usage had been to make good the loss to that the prisoner may be considered as the the particular company by whom it was servant of the four companies or of the suffered out of the funds of the general committee, and that the conviction is station committee; that losses by negli- right. gence had thus been very frequently made

Conviction afirmed. good, and losses by embezzlement on three or four occasions. The fund out of which these losses are made good is a different fund from that which is in the

[CROWN CASE RESERVED.] cashier's hands for payment over to the 1856. several companies or their bankers, as be- Nov. 15. fore mentioned; it is in the hands of Messrs. Dixon & Wardell, bankers, of Chester, as

Larceny-Money-Bank Notes paid into

Branch Bank. the bankers of the general station committee, and is drawn out by cheques signed The prisoner, a clerk in the W. County by the general manager.

Bank, intercepted and stole a packet of Upon this state of facts it was objected by bank notes of the W. bank to the amount of the prisoner's counsel, that no count of the 951., which had been paid into a branch indictment was supported by the evidence, bank, and by the manager of that bank for that the prisoner was not the servant of had been sent by post to the W. bank to be the Great Western Railway Company, or of re-issued or otherwise disposed of :-Held, the four companies, or of Mr. Jones; and that the notes, though they were not in cirthat if he was the servant of the general culation at the time they were stolen, were station committee he did not receive the still bank notes within the meaning of the monies alleged to have been embezzled by statute 14 f. 15 Vict. c. 110. s. 18, which him for or on account or in the name of allows bank notes to be described as money that committee, but for and on account and in an indictment, and that consequently the in the name of the Great Western Railway prisoner might properly be indicted and conCompany. The Queen v. Townsend (1) victed of stealing 951. in money. and The Queen v. Beaumont (2) were cited. I reserved these objections for the decision The following case was stated by the of this Court, and left to the jury to say chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the whether the prisoner had fraudulently re- Isle of Ely. tained to his own use the sums which he F. West and E. West were charged on had received over and above those which an indictment (a copy of which is hereunto he had accounted for and paid over. The annexed), the said F. West with stealing jury found the prisoner guilty of all the 951. in money, and the said E. West with charges alleged in the indictment, and receiving 51. in money, part of the said thereupon I respited the sentence and ad- 951., knowing them to have been stolen. mitted him to bail until the judgment of The manager of the National Provincial this Court should have been given upon Bank of England, at Boston, inclosed in the points reserved. The question which an envelope, addressed to the manager of I respectfully submit for the decision of the same bank at Wisbeach, nineteen 51. this Court, therefore, is, whether any of notes of the said bank, (issued at Wisthe counts of the indictment was supported bech), which had been paid into the by the evidence.

branch bank at Boston. The bank do not No counsel was instructed for the pri- re-issue at one branch notes originally soner.

issued at another branch, but transmit them (1) 1 Den. C.C. 167. (2) i Dears. C.C. 270; s.c. 23 LawJ. Rep. (N.s.)

Coram Pollock, C.B., Erle, J., Willes, J., M.C. 54.

Bramwell, B. and Watson, B.

« ZurückWeiter »