Abbott, C.J. That cannot be asked; what is done at any particular school is not evidence. You may shew the general treatment of boys at schools, and shew that the plaintiff treated the boys here as well as they could be treated for £20 a year each, for board, education, and clothes.
One of the plaintiff’s scholars was then called to prove the plaintiff’s good treatment of them.
In cross-examination, the defendant’s counsel wished to ask him whether the plaintiff did not set the boys to plant potatoes in school hours?
Abbott, C.J. I do not think you can ask this; the issue here being whether the plaintiff’s scholars were ill fed, badly lodged, had the itch, and had vermin. Nothing has been said as to their being badly educated. Their education is not in question here.
Gurney, for the defendant, addressed the jury, and called witnesses to prove the truth of the words.
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £120.
FOOTNOTES:
[29] The question of the domicile or “settlement” of paupers was the cause of endless litigation. See Mr. Blake Odgers’ lecture V in “A Century of Law Reform.” He quotes a judgment in 1724 which has been preserved in rhyme.
“A woman, having a ‘settlement,’ married a man with none.
The question was, he being dead, if what she had is gone.