West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser

13 JULY 1849, Friday

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wbritonad/cornwall/1849/misc/jul.html

Tavistock appellant, Mr. BRIDGMAN and Mr. STOKES; Liskeard, respondent, Mr. HOCKIN and Mr. LYNE. Appeal against an order for removal of CHARITY GUNDRY and four children from Liskeard to Tavistock. In this case the grounds of removal alleged by respondents were, a settlement by birth; secondly, a settlement by the father of the pauper renting a tenement in Tavistock; and thirdly, a settlement by relief of the widow of JOHN GUNDRY, pauper's father. The first ground of appeal stated that neither pauper's husband, herself, nor her children, were at any time legally settled in Tavistock parish, in manner or form as alleged in the grounds of removal. And another ground of appeal was that the relief given by Tavistock was given by mistake. Mr. HOCKIN objected that the first ground of appeal, stating merely that the pauper "was not at any time legally settled," was so general that respondents ought not under it to be obliged to go into their grounds of removal. For to prove a settlement by renting a tenement, it would be necessary to prove five or six distinct points, such as, that it was a separate and distinct tenement, that the rent exceeded GBP10 a year, that the rent was bona fide paid, and other points. Was it fair for respondents to be brought there under this general ground, and then to be tripped up on any particular point. If the rating were objected to, or the payment objected to, why was it not specifically stated, that respondents might know what they should have to meet. He cited cases, and submitted that such a general ground of appeal was not fair, that it was not within the intention of the legislature, and was opposed to the practice of the Court. Mr. Bridgman, and Mr. Stokes, in reply, cited a later case than those mentioned by Mr. Hockin, The Queen v. St. Giles, Colchester, 3rd volume, New Sessions Cases, p. 240, in which Lord Denman and the other Judges affirmed the principle that a general traverse would take in issue the whole of the particulars included. In the present case the traverse was as complete as it could be; it was an express denial of all the statements in the grounds of removal. In the case cited there was only a simple denial, but not content with this, in the present instance the statement was that they were not legally settled "in the manner or form as allege on the grounds of removal," which words applied to the alleged settlement by renting a tenement; and with regard to the alleged settlement by relief, the answer in the grounds of appeal was that the relief was given by mistake. Mr. Hockin replied that the case cited was different from the present; in that there was only one settlement by birth, while here there were two distinct settlements. The question was whether the real points they intended to attack were not imperfectly set forth by the appellants. The Court over-ruled the objection. Mr. Hockin then called ANN GUNDRY, aged 82 years, widow of JOHN GUNDRY, who said her son JOSEPH was born at Shilla-mill, in Tavistock parish. She, her husband, and son afterwards lived in West Street, Tavistock, for three years, in a house belonging to Mr. RALPH, which they wholly occupied at GBP19 a year, and GBP3 rates. She had a great dislike to go westward, and took the house in order to get a settlement in Tavistock. They left Tavistock twenty-three years ago, since lived at St. Blazey for seventeen years, returned to Tavistock, and had pay for three weeks, went back to Tywardreath, and received pay from that parish. The old woman was cross-examined by Mr. Bridgman, but after some questions, she occasioned some amusement by saying she would not be hurried in that way, and would say no more about it. After several attempts at questioning, to no purpose, she was taken out of the box. Mr. Hockin then presented a certificate that relief had been given to Ann Gundry by Tavistock union. Mr. Bridgman next opened his case by stating that the old woman was altogether mistaken in her relation of the facts; and he then called -----ANDREWS, SAMUEL WHITBURN, a miner who had worked with pauper's father, and THOMAS GIBBONS, who had lived in the same house with old Gundry at Tavistock. Mr. Andrews, relieving officer of Tavistock union, proved that the relief given to Ann Gundry was given by mistake, the guardians supposing her statement to be correct, that her husband had lived in the town, and rented a house of GBP17 or GBP18 a year. The other evidence was that John Gundry, pauper's father, was a miner who came from the west, worked in the Creeburn mine, lived first at Shilla-mill, and then in West Street, Tavistock, where he occupied only two rooms of a house at the rent of GBP4 a year, other parties living in the front part of the house. The old woman was also contradicted in other statements; and Mr. Hockin, on the part of the respondents, abandoned opposition to this part of the case. Mr. Bridgman then called Joseph Gundry, of Wendron, brother of pauper's father, who proved that pauper was born an illegitimate in the parish of Wendron. Order quashed. Mr. Bridgman submitted that consideration [..... ........ ........?] of the case, he was entitled to [.........?] costs. Mr. Hockin opposed; but the Court granted costs of GBP20.