Author Topic: Removal Order Nottingham St Mary  (Read 116 times)

Offline SandraEve

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Removal Order Nottingham St Mary
« on: Saturday 01 August 20 17:49 BST (UK) »
Can anyone please help me with the following regarding my third great grandfather Thomas May and his family regarding a removal order on 17 January 1834 from St Marys Nottingham to Whiston in Yorkshire. The order was contested by the Whiston overseers and the following was printed in the Nottingham Journal on 11 April 1834 :
"This was an appeal against the order of removal of Thomas May from the parish of St Mary, in this town to the parish of Whiston in the county of York-Mr Oakley appeared for the appellants and Mr Hurst for the respondents- The circumstances were briefly stated by Mr Hurst; by which it appeared it was admitted by the appellants that the pauper had been apprenticed and served forty days at Whiston. The only question submitted for the consideration of the Court was, whether the indenture was a valid one. Mr Oakley contended it was not, as notice of the intended binding had not been approved agreeably to the Act of the 56th of George III. The court after hearing Mr Hurst confirmed the order subject to a case to be heard in the Court of Kings Bench"

I don't understand what this means
 "the intended binding had not been proved agreeably to the Act of the 56th George III"
and was there to be another hearing

Any help will be much appreciated
Sandra




Offline Bookbox

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,962
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Removal Order Nottingham St Mary
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 01 August 20 20:55 BST (UK) »
The Parish Apprentices Act was passed in 1816 (= 56. George III) and prescribed that no apprentice could be bound to a master who was more than 40 miles distant from the parish, without a magistrate's express consent. This was probably the point at issue here.

The distance between Whiston and Nottingham seems to be about 35 miles. So the order was upheld, and he could lawfully have been removed.

‘Subject to a case to be heard in the Court of King’s Bench’ probably indicates that there was another case going through the courts, perhaps on a related point of the law, the result of which might have affected the outcome in this case.

Offline SandraEve

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Removal Order Nottingham St Mary
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 02 August 20 09:10 BST (UK) »
Thank you so much for this knowledgeable reply. I am very grateful
Sandra