And in the K. v. Silton, Hil. 21 Geo. 2, the question was Whether the son of a certificate person, born in the parish to which his father came by certificate and bound apprentice, and serving an apprenticeship to a master in a third parish, 'gains a settlement in the third parish by such apprenticeship?'--By THE COURT. The pauper in this case was a person at large, as to every other parish, except that to which the certificate was delivered, and therefore he gained a settlement in the third parish. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 269.

So also in the K. v. Bishopside, Tr. 28 Geo. 2, a man being settled in Menwith cum Darly, came from thence with a certifi. cate to the township of High and low Bishopside, where he resided some years; afterwards he purchased a freehold-house for 101. in Dacre cum Buerly; after which he left Bishopside, and went to inhabit in Dacre cum Buerly, to which place he carried his said certificate, and delivered it to the proper officer there.' During his residence at Dacre cum Buerly, the pau. per was bound to him as an apprentice by indenture for seven years, and he performed his service under the said indenture with his said master; who all the time inhabited in his said house in Dacre cum Buerly.-The question was, Whether the serving an apprenticeship to a certificate-man in a third parish, to which the master's certificate was not directed,' could gain a settlement to the apprentice in such third parish? It was urged that under 8 & 9 Wil. 3. c. 30, a parish may give a general certificate not addressed to any particular party; and in such case,every parish to which such a certificated person comes will be bound to receive him; and that therefore this appren. tice did not gain a settlement in Dacre cum Buerly. But by THE COURT. This act does not give a right of removal to any third parish it relates only to the parish, township, or place to which the certificate was given. Therefore no third parish has a right to claim that benefit from the provisions of it, which was only intended to extend to that single parish to which the paupers came certificated, from that wherein they were settled. It is true, it is said, that he delivered this certificate to the proper officers of Dacre cum Buerly, but that was neither necessary nor proper and indeed it ought to • have been left with the officers of the parish of Bishopside.' It is not directed to the officers of Dacre cum Buerly; nor sent to them by those of Menwith cum Dartey. Besides, the man mentioned in the certificate had a right to come to the parish of Dacre cum Buerly without a certificate: for he had purcha sed a freehold house there; and he had a right to come and live in it. The apprentice did therefore gain settlement there, by being bound an apprentice, and inhabiting as such*. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 381.

* The same point was also determined in the K, v. St. Peter's in Nottingham, Ea. 29 Geo. 3, which case was as follows: The parish of Baston gave a certificate to one Trentham, to St. Peter's; the certificate-man took an apprentice, who served him some considerable time in St. Peter's, afterwards the master removed to St. Mary's where the apprentice serv

So likewise in the K. v. Horsley, Tr. 28 Geo. 2, the only question was, Whether the son of a certificate person, born in the parish to which his parent came by certificate, could gain a settlement in a third parish by hiring and service for a year? -And THE COURT were clear that this gained a settlement in the third parish; and that the case of the K, v. Silton, was in point, only with this immaterial difference, that there the son's settle. ment was gained by apprenticeship, and here by a hiring and service. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 285.

liament.

And a person who comes into one of several parishes, by a Parishes certificate, is not precluded thereby from gaining a settlement in consolidated any of the other parishes; for the certificate can only be direct. by act of 'pared, and have effect in one parish. Thus in the K. v. the Inhabilants of Wymondham, Hil. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, an order of justices for the removal of a pauper and his wife from St. Stephen's in Norwich to Wymondham, in the county of Norfolk, was confirmed on appeal, subject to the opinion of the court, on the fol lowing case :-On the 10th of Dec. 1735, a certificate signed by two churchwardens and overseers describing themselves as the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Wymondham, was sent to the parish of St. Stephen, in the city of Norwich, acknowledging the father and mother of the pauper, and their children, of whom the pauper was one, to be inhabitants legally settled in Wymondham, and undertaking to receive them, whenever they should become chargeable to St. Stephen's, or to any other parish in Norwich. The pauper hired himself to a person of Lakenham from Lady Day 1738, for a year, at the wages of 50s, and served his master for that and the two following years. The parish of Lakenham is one of the parishes within the liberties of the city of Norwich. Prior to the year! 1776, the year in which the parish of Wymondham was incorporated with other parishes in the hundred of Forehae, in the county of Norfolk, for the maintenance of the poor by act of parliament, it had been usual in the parish of Wymondham to appoint four churchwardens and eight overseers of the poor every year. The parish of Wymondham consists of several di visions. One general rate is made for the whole parish, which is collected separately in each division; the money so collected has been paid into the hands of a treasurer who acts for the parish at large. The poor persons of each division are relieved out of this general fund; and no order of removal has ever becn made from one division of the parish of Wymondham, to auother division of the same parish. In support of the order of Sessions, it was contended, 1st. That the certificate granted by Wymondham, was conclusive on that parish, because it was signed by two churchwardens and four overseers; for though it has been usual to appoint four churchwardens and eight overseers in that parish, the latter could not all be legal officers: the stat. 45 Eliz. c. 2, having confined the number of overseers to four*,

ed him about a year.The counsel who were to have contended that this did not gain the apprentice a settlement in the third parish, gave. up the point, it being exactly the same as that in the case of the K. v. Bishopside. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 391.

* And more cannot be appointed. See title Poor.

and consequently that all above that number were illegal officers; and 2dly, That the certificate was not discharged by the pau. per's hiring and service in Lakenham in Norwich: all the parishes in that city having been consolidated by the stat. 10 Ann. and being in law but one parish; and the parish of Wymondham having expressly undertaken to receive the pauper whenever he should become chargeable, either to St. Stephen's or to any other parish in the city of Norwich - By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. A certificate is not binding on the parish granting it, unless it be signed by a majority of the parish officers. Here the first question is, whether this certificate was signed by a majority of the parish officers de facto, as contradistinguished from such officers de jure; for if it were, it was valid. The counsel in support of the order of sessions has attempted to make a dis. tinction between the first four overseers and the rest: but if the legality of their appointment were under consideration, it would be impossible to distinguish the first from the last, and to say that the four first only were legally appointed. Here, indeed, it is not stated as a fact, that there were twelve parish officers at the time when this certificate was granted: but the justices have stated evidence sufficient to have enabled them to draw the conclusion, that the fact was so; for they have stated that it was usual to have that number in the parish. But it would be nugatory to send the case back on that ground, because, if the certificate were valid at the time when it was granted, I think it was discharged by the pauper's subsequent hiring and service in the parish of Lakenham, which, to this purpose, is a separate and distinct parish from that of St. Stephen's And a certificate is not a transferable instrument from oue parish to another: if it were to extend further, it would operate as a licence for vagrants. 6 Term Rep. 552. 1 East's Rep. 439.

Not only the persons mentioned in the certificate, but all legitimate children, born while it continues in force, are virtually included therein. Thus in the K. v. Sherborne, Ea. 15 Geo. 2, Ilumphrey Eyres, the father of George Eyres, the pauper, came by certificate from Thornford into the parish of Sherborne, with his wife and family by which certificate, the said Humphrey and his wife and family were owned to be legal in. habitants of Thornford. In about two years afterwards his wife died, and shortly after he married a second wife, by which second wife he had the pauper George Eyres; which said George, when he was about sixteen years of age, was hired for a year, and served that year in the said parish of Sherborne, The prin cipal question was, Whether the son of a certificate-person, born after the certificate, can gain a settlement otherwise than a certificate-person himself cau?-And BY THE COURT, The statute 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30, と extends not only to the certifi 'cate-man himself, but likewise to all his family and all

his children, whether born before or after the certificate.' And the 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 11, declares what shall gain them a settlement in that parish to which they came by certificate, and restrains it to two methods only, which it specifies ; and service is

neither of these two methods to which it is restrained. Bur row's Sett. Cas. 182.

So in the K. v. Bray, Ilil. 5 G. 2, the father of the pauper, James Gould, came by certificate from Shottesbrooke to Bray; after which the said pauper was born, and at the age of 20 years was hired for a year, and served the same in Bray. It was objected that the son being born after his father came from Shottesbrooke to Bray, cannot be considered within the words of the act, as coming into the parish by certificate; and being twenty years of age, he ought not to be considered as part of his father's family, and dependent upon his settlement.---But by THE COURT. The case of the K. v. Sherborne is in point", and was settled upon good reason; because, as the son has the advantage of the certificate, and cannot be removed until actually chargeable, so he ought on the other haud to be bound by the terms of it. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 259.

So also a second wife married after the granting of the certifi tale, is to be considered as included therein.---Thus in the K. §. the Inhabitants of Hampton, Ea. 33 Geo. 3, a man and his wife came to reside in Ilampton, under a certificate from the parish of Thackham: his wife dying, he married a second, and then died, leaving such second wife him surviving; the widow continued to reside in Hampton, and, at a period considerably Subsequent to his death, took a poor girl of the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields, as an apprentice, which apprentice served her in the parish of Hampton, for upwards of forty days: the mistress then died. By lord Kenyon Ch. J. the question is, Whether the apprentice acquires a settlement by a residence of above forty days in this parish, with the widow of the person so certificated and I am of opinion, that she did not. It has been decided, that a parish certificate extends to those who were not originally included in it as members of the family at the time when it was given; for it has been held, that a child born after the giving of the certificate is included in it, and consequently cannot acquire a settlement in that parish by hiring and service. Now, in point of reason, I cannot distinguish this case from that; for here the second wife was ingrafted in it, and formed part of the family of the pater familias, and beyond all doubt the certificate extended to her; if the woman, therefore, resided under the certificate, the pauper could gain no settlement by serving an apprenticeship to her there.--Ashhurst J. not having been present at the argument, gave no opinion...-Buller J. This case strikes me in a very different light from what it does my lord chief justice. I consider the certificate operating in favour of the mau and his family, as long as any of the members of it remained part of his family; but when the husband died, the wife was no longer a part of his family, but might have been

The like point was also adjudged in the case of Buckingham Y. Maid's Moreton, Burrow's Selt. Cases, 314, as a point clearly deteriniaed and settled.

removed back to his parish; and consequently any person serv. ing with her there as an apprentice after that time, might gain a settlement by such apprenticeship.-Grose J. The widow, at the time of this man's death, was a part of his family, and con. tinued therefore protected by the certificate, until she should marry again, or desert it by going to reside in another parish; this furnishes an answer to a question put at the bar, Whether, if she married again, she could have gained a settlement in that parish with her husband; or could be removed as resident under the certificate? To which I answer, that the certificate would, in that case, have been at an end; because she would have gained a new settlement by means of her new husband, that which was his, being by her marriage communicated to her. And when it is said, that she resided under the husband's certi. ficate only during his life, I say it is otherwise; she is resident as the child was resident; and this has been determined to be as part of her husband's family, as well after, as before his death: considering this woman, therefore, as part of her husband's fa. mily, she came into the parish, or was resident there, by means or licence of the certificate: of course, her apprentice can gain no settlement by service under the indentures.-Order of ses sions, quashing the order of removal to St. Martin's in the Fields, quashed. 5 Term Rep. 266. Nolan's Rep. 239.

But if a certificate acknowledges, in express terms, the fa. ther, mother, and two younger children by name, and does not include an elder child of the age of 14, who at the time of the removal was maintaining himself by his own labour as a hired servant, and paying for board in his father's house; con. sequently such elder child, by such hiring and service, gains a settlement in the certificated parish. This was decided in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Storrington... Hil. Ter. 37 Geo. 3, which was as follows ;-Two justices removed the pauper, with his wife and two children from Storrington to Patching, and on appeal the order of removal was quashed, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case. In 1778, the pauper's father then, and for some years before, having been resident in Storrington, with his wife and three children, viz. the pauper aged about 14, and two younger children, was removed by order of two justices, with his wife and the said two younger children, to Patching, from whence he shortly after returned to Storrington with a certificate from Patching, regularly executed and allowed, acknowledging him, his wife, and the two younger children, by name, to be inhabitants of Patching: but the pauper was neither included in the order of removal or in the certificate; the parish officers of Storrington having declared upon the examination of the father before the magistrates, previous to his removal to Patching, that as the pauper got his own living, they had nothing to do with him. The pauper at the time of this exami nation, and for some time before, and also after the father's re