PETERSFIELD.
COUNTY COURT.—A Court was held at the Town hall on Monday last, before C. J. Gunner Esq., Deputy Judge, at which upwards of 70 plaints were entered for hearing, between 30 and 40 of which were by the same complainant, Mr. David Colwell, who was represented by Mr. Albery, of Midhurst. Mr. Albery in opening the 1st. case, stated that plaintiff had carried on business as a grocer, &c., at Horndean, and having now left the business in other hands, he was desirous of closing these accounts, many of which were of long standing. The defendants were chiefly of the labouring class; the whole of the claims were undisputed, and orders for payment were made varying from 4s. to 10s. per month. The only case of public interest which came before the Court was the following. The Guardians of the Petersfield Union v. Reuben Heath.—This was a claim for 2l. 17s. 9d. for ‟52 weeks’ relief to the defendant, as a pauper, chargeable to the parish of Steep, in the said Union.” Mr. Albery, of Midhurst, appeared for the plaintiff, and having called his Honor’s attention to a recent Act of Parliament under which a pauper becoming possessed of any money or valuable security for money, is rendered liable to refund the amount of one year’s relief, proceeded to examine the defendant as to certain money which he in right of his wife had become possessed of, under the will of a person named Hoare; and having elicited the fact that he still had in his possession a portion of a sum of 250l., the remainder of which had been invested in the purchase of a house, the defendant was adjudged to pay the amount of the claim with costs, in a fortnight. His Honor remarked in giving judgement, that although the case was new to him and he had no concern with the policy of the legislature in passing such an Act, it did appear to him to be but reasonabIe, that a person who had been for many years maintained by a parish, on becoming possessed of property should contribute something in return. He had no doubt many of the ratepayers of the parish were poor people, and much worse off than the defendant. We believe this is the first time the Act referred to has been put in force in the neighbourhood. The same v. Lucy Pollard.—This was a similar case, and resulted in a similar adjudication, the amount claimed being 7l. odd.
Hampshire Telegraph - Saturday 02 October 1858
PETERSFIELD.
Agent—Miss DUPLOCK.
ERRATUM.—In our County Court report, last week, ‟The Guardians of the Petersfield Union v. Reuben Heath,” the amount of claim was misprinted 2l.; it should have been 12l.