Removal Order Appeal – June 30th 1859 – George UGLOW Lawhitton to Week St. Mary

WEEK ST. MARY, Appellant; Mr. Childs and Mr. Peter. LAWHITTON, Respondent; Mr. Stokes and Mr. Dingley. This was an Appeal against an order dated 9th April 1859, by Mr. Rodd and Mr. Hanson, justices, for the removal of George Uglow, a pauper lunatic, from the parish of Lawhitton to Week St. Mary; the pauper being present in the County Lunatic Asylum. Mr. CHILDS took a preliminary objection to the notice of chargeability and grounds of removal that, there being two overseers and two churchwardens in the parish of Lawhitton, the notice and grounds were signed by the two overseers only; whereas, he contended, it ought to have been signed by, at least, a majority of the overseers and churchwardens. Mr. STOKES, admitting the facts stated by Mr. Childs, contended that according to the Statute 16 and 17 Vict. cap. 97, section 107, and the interpretation clause of that act, the signature by two overseers was all that was required.—Mr. STOKES further argued that the appellants were not entitled to take this technical objection, inasmuch as the grounds of appeal merely stated, in reference to this point, that the grounds of removal were bad on the face thereof; and he urged that such a notice as that must be understood as referring solely to the substance of the grounds of removal, and not to the signatures. To justify their taking objection to the signatures, the appellants ought to have been more specific in their notice. Mr. CHILDS replied, supporting his objection by reference to the Lunacy Act and to a note by Archbold thereupon, in proof that churchwardens were included under the term overseers. On Mr. Stokes’s second point, he contended that the signatures were in fact a substantial part of the grounds of removal, and therefore might be objected to under a general notice that the grounds were bad on the face thereof. The COURT overruled Mr. Child’s objection. Mr. STOKES then proceeded to state the respondents’ case, on merits. It was substantially, that the pauper, now about 70 years of age, had gained a settlement in the appellant parish by hiring and service as a farm labourer—in the first place in 1803, with Andrew Hicks, a farmer, living at Morrish Farm, and subsequently in 1805, with his (the pauper’s) uncle, James Uglow, a miller and farmer, at Trefrowse Mill. In support of this case, there was a long examination of the following witnesses: Mr. William Uglow, of Lifton, a younger brother of the pauper; and Mrs. Mary Trick, aged 64, a daughter of the late Mr. Andrew Hicks of Morrish. A certificate of the pauper’s baptism in Week St. Mary in 1794 was put in.—In opposition to this evidence, Mr. CHILDS adduced the testimony of Mr. Thomas Baker, aged 70, owner of Ketley, adjoining Morrish Farm.—The conflict of evidence was chiefly on the question whether or not the pauper had, under either of the two employers referred to, served and resided a full year. After hearing arguments on the evidence adduced, the justices retired for consultation, and on their return the Chairman announced that the Court confirmed the order on the first point. Mr. CHILDS then proposed to show a settlement, subsequent to that gained in Week St. Mary, in the parish of Poundstock, by renting of Penfound Mill, at a rental above £10. According to the evidence of Catherine Sandercock, of North Tamerton, formerly the wife of John Orchard of Week St. Mary, who died about 20 years ago, her late husband was the owner of Penfound Mills, which consisted of two mills, a dwelling-house, stable, pigs-houses, and garden on the Poundstock side of a stream which divides that parish from Week St. Mary; while on the Week St. Mary side of the stream, Mr. Orchard owned too little plots of coarse wastrel and two very small orchards—the whole about 1½ acres.—Of this property on both sides of the stream, the first tenant spoken of was Robert Cotton, at a total rental of £18 a year; he was succeeded in the tenancy by Peter Dawe, who paid a total rent of £16 a year; and Dawe was succeeded by the pauper George Uglow, who took it at a rent of £14 a year. The witness believed that her husband received altogether, in apples, pigs, corn, and money, for rent, from George Uglow, about £20.—John Orchard, a brother of Mrs. Sandercock, and who used to keep the accounts for his cousin, her former husband, in the years 1836 to 1839 inclusive, was examined on the book produced. He stated that Uglow lived at Penfound between two and three years; and the book showed that the sum of payments made by him to his landlord, in respect of Penfound on both sides of the stream, was £19 19s. 6d in money and kind. Henry Badcock, land surveyor, was examined as to the value of Penfound property, in the aggregate, and in its separate portions in the two different parishes. In 1833 he valued the parish of Poundstock for the Poor Rate; at that time the tenant of Penfound Mill was Robert Cotton; he then valued the Poundstock portion of Penfound at about £9 a year for rental. In 1842 he valued the parish of Poundstock for apportionment of tithes, and made the clear annual value of the Poundstock portion of Penfound £9 17s. 7d.; the gross value being £12 16s.; that was assuming the rates to be as at the present time.—In the present month he had again viewed the property; and, in his judgment, the fair clear rental if it would be £9 18s. 10d.—About 5 or 6 years ago he valued, for purposes of sale, the portion of Penfound which lies in the parish of Week St. Mary; he valued it for Sir William Call, reversioner of two-thirds of that property; on that occasion, his valuation, for rental, of that part was £2 13s. 8d. per annum. He had valued the same property in the present month, and made its value for rental, £2 12s. 10½d. This valuation be made without reference to his previous valuations.— Assuming that the rent of the two parts was £14 a year in 1836, he should say that the proportion for the Poundstock part would be about £11, and that for the Week St. Mary part about £2 7s. 5d. In every case he had made the rent for the Poundstock part above £10, and he had tested it in every way; in 1833, it would have been £12 10s. 7d. Mr. John Wills, of South Petherwyn, land surveyor and farmer, in 1841 valued the parish of Week St. Mary for the purposes of tithe apportionment; at that time the value of the plots of land held with Penfound Mill was £1 18s. 6d. for rental. He valued the same property last Monday and made its present value, £2 10s. per rental. Also on last Monday he valued the Poundstock part of Penfound Mill, and made its value £9 0s. 10½d. for rental. Assuming a rent of £14 for the property, he should say, on his valuation of Monday last, that the proportion of Poundstock would be £10 19s. 1½d., and that for Week St. Mary, £3 0s. 10½d. Evidence on the rate for 1837—the only rate which it appears could be found between 1833 and 1846—was given in support of the appellants’ case, by John Sandercock, one of the present overseers of Poundstock, and by William Medland, one of his predecessors in office. Mr. PETER summed up the appellants’ evidence; after which Mr. STOKES replied generally. The Justices retired, and on their return, the CHAIRMAN stated that they found that the settlement in Poundstock was proved. The Order for Removal to Week St. Mary was consequently quashed; common costs; no maintenance.

Source: Royal Cornwall Gazette July 8, 1859 (Cornwall Midsummer Sessions)

Transcribed by Karen Duvall