Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

not within the protection of the certificate, but that in the latte where the son is named, his family until they are emancipate are within the protection of the certificate, not as the gran children of the principal person mentioned in the certificat but as the family and children of the son who is also named the certificate; and the court therefore thought that the case. R. v. Testerton, ought to govern the present case. 8 Ter. R

416.

Also in the K. v. St. Peter of Mancroft in Norwich, Ter. 40 Geo. 3. the court decided that the sessions ought state as a fact (in a settlement case) whether the master ( pensed with the service before the end of the year, or whet there was a dissolution of the contract by mutual consent, for defect herein they ordered the case to be sent down to restated. 8 Ter. Rep. 477.

And if a son born under a certificate, after emancipa from his father's family becomes chargeable; he shall be to the parish from whence his father came by certificate, i has gained no settlement in his own right; notwithstan his father may have acquired a new settlement, and thei avoided the certificate. Thus in the K. v. Bugden, H Geo. 2, a man and his wife came with a certificate from parish of Royston to the parish of Ampthill, where they h son born, who continued to live with his father till he twenty-one years old, and then married at Ampthill, and came head of his own family, and lived separate from his fat The father then gained a. settlement at Bugden. The son wife, and children, becoming chargeable at Ampthill, were order of two justices, which was confirmed by the sessions, moved to "Bugden, as the last place of the old man's legal "tlement, he not having by any act of his own gained a settleme But BY THE WHOLE COURT. Both orders must be quasi for where the son becomes independant of his father, " he i not follow the father's last place of settlement, but shal sent to the place where his father's settlement was at the he separated from his father's house; and this is Royston. father, when he gained a settlement at Bugden, gained it himself and family; but Thomas the son was then no pa his family; he never was there, so he could have no settlen at Bugden. 1'ils. 183. Burrow's Sett. Cas, 270.

And the son of a certificated person caunot gain a settlen in the certificated parish by apprenticeship; though the fa (to whom the certificate was given) died six months be the expiration of the apprenticeship, thus in the K. v. Alfre. Hill. 38 Geo. 3. it appeared that the pauper was born in Mary, Nottingham, when the father was residing there un a certificate from Alfreton: whilst the father, was so resi in St. Mary's the pauper was bound apprentice to a perso the same parish for 7 years by indenture, and after serving two years he was assigned to another master in the same par six months before the expiration of the apprenticeship, pauper's father and mother both died, and the pauper conti

to serve his last master for the remainder of the time in the same
parish.-The sessions had confirmed an order of two justices
removing the pauper to Alfreton. And BY THE COURT this is
an attempt on the part of the parish of Alfreton to put a construc-
tion on the certificate different from that which it has invariably
received ever since it passed: in contemplation of law this son
came into the parish of St. Mary under the certificate: now the
statute says, that a person who comes into a parish by a cer-
tificate, can only gain a settlement in one of two ways, but
apprenticeship is not either of those two ways, and therefore
the pauper did not gain a settlement there.
7 Ter. Rep.

471.

But where the son of a certificated person. (not named in the certificate otherwise than under the general appellation of the father's family) marries and lives in a house of his own in the certificated parish, he ceases to be under the protection of the certificate as part of his father's family; and an apprentice may gain a settlement by serving such person in the certifi cated parish. The K. v. Mortlake, Ea. Ter. 43 Geo. 3. 6 East's Rep. 397. 2 Smith's Rep. 531.

A certificate is discharged by the certificated person gaining How a certif. a new settlement in another parish. Thus in the K. v. Great cate may be Torrington, Tr. 30 & 31 Geo. 2, a woman came by certificate discharged, from Lanerass to Biddeford, and inhabited there some years: then she was bound apprentice by the officers of the parish of Lancrass, and lived under the indenture at Great Torrington for several years: after the expiration of the apprenticeship, the hired herself for a year, and served that year in Biddeford. The question was, Whether by this hiring and service she gained a settlement in Biddeford, to which place she had come by certificate? and it was adjudged (the point being given up as dearly settled), that having served an apprenticeship in a third parish, she was become quite clear of the certificate, and thereforev e was as much at liberty to gain a new settlement at Biddeford, as any uncertificated person could be*. Burrow's Sett.

t'. 4287

Also a certificate is discharged, by the certificated person becoming chargeable, and being removed back to the certifying parish--Thus in the K. v. Sudbury, Hil. 28 Geo. 2, one Thomas Bladen and his wife and children were certificated From Sudbury to Uttoxeter. Thomas died there. Then the widow and children became actually chargeable, and were sent back to Sudbury. In about a year afterwards John Bladen, the present pauper, and one of the said children, was bound by dentare, as a parish apprentice, in Uttoxeter, and served out his time there. The question was, Whether by such appren ticeship he gained a settlement at Uttoxeter?-And by Ryder Ch.J. The removal of the pauper John Bladen, by an order

The same point was also determined, the same term, in the case the K Keynsham, Burrows' Sett. Cases, 429.

of two justices, from Uttoxeter to Sudbury, did restore him as fully as if there had been no certificate at all: the certificate, was, if I may so say, funclus officio, after this order of removal back again to the parish which gave it. It can have its effect but once: and therefore, after this removal back again, it can have no further effect. The intention of the certificate is to secure the parish which receives such certificate persons from being obliged to support them and their family, in case they.. should become chargcable. Now this event did fall out: and they were accordingly removed back again. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 373.

[ocr errors]

So in the K. v. Birdham, Hil. 25 Geo. 3, the father of the pauper, about thirty years ago, went by certificate from Birdham to Walburton, and under this certificate the pauper was born in Walburton. After residing two or three years in. Walburton, the father voluntarily removed with his family to Arundel, where (under a fresh certificate from Birdham) he resided about five years. He then voluntarily removed with his family to St. Andrew in Chichester, and resided there (under a certificate from Birdham) about ten years. From thence he voluntarily removed with his family to the parish of All Saints, otherwise Pallant, in the same city, and there lived about six months (under another certificate from Birdham); when fal ling into distress, and applying for relief, the parish officers obtained an order of two justices for the city, for the removal of him, his wife, and five children from All Saints to Birdham; but George, the pauper, one of the children, being then em. ployed to look after horses as a stable-boy in St. Andrew aforesaid, the adjoining parish to All Saints, he was not removed with his father about two or three days after, however, he went to his father at Birdham, and lived with him. about six months as part of his family. Being then sixteen ( years of age, he put himself apprentice, by indentures legally executed and stamped, to a cordwainer at Valburton for three years, the greater part of which time, and particularly the two last mouths thereof, he served with his master in Walbur'ton.' The question was, Whether he had thereby gained a settlement? And this turned upon the point, Whether the origi nal certificate granted to Walburton had been discharged?-And by lord Mansfield Ch. J. I think the original certificate granted thirty years ago, was discharged by the subsequent certificate; and if not, it was certainly discharged by the order of re moval. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 741. Caldecot's Cases, 500. A certificate is also discharged by the certificated person's voluntarily leaving the parish to which he was certified, without any intention of returning thereto-Thus in the K. v. Taunton St. Mary Magdalen, Tr. 29 & 30 Geo. 2, the grandfather of the pauper came from Taunton St. James's to Taunton St. Mary Magdalen with a CERTIFICATE: afterwards he went back into the parish of Taunton St. James; and there had a son, the father of the present pauper. This son afterwards married in Taunton St. James; and went and lived with his wife and

family, in a house in the said parish of Taunton St. James's," apart from the father; and had issue Robert the paper, born in Taunton St. James's. The grandfather died in Taunton St. James's. Then the pauper's father died: and the puper was bound out an apprentice, by the parish of Taunton St. James's, into the parish of Taunton St. Mary Magdalen; and there terved his apprenticeship. It was contended, that by virtue of the certificate given with the grandfather to the parish of Taunton St. Mary Magdalen, the said apprentice gained no settlement in Taunton St. Mary Magdalen,but continued settled in the parish of Taunton St. James, which had given the certificate--But BY THE COURT. The certificate was of no force at the time of the grandson's being put apprentice in Taunton St. Mary's; but was then totally at an end; for in so long a course of come as this is, viz. 54 years after its being executed, and after such a desertion, we will conclude that there was an end of it. It was, at the time when the order in question was made, and under the circumstances of this case, of no more effect thau if it had never been given. It was absolutely waived and deserted: and the father and grandfather of this pauper could not have gone to St. Mary's "again without a new certificate; the old one being totally at an end. It is a good deal like the case of the K. 7. Sudbury, where the certificate was considered as functus offico, and as if it had never at all existed: being, in that case, totally at an end, as being satisfied, and having had its full and whole effect, by the removal of the paupers (under an order of justices indeed) to the parish who had given that certificate. Therefore, without entering into a discussion of the question, whether the certificate-act extends to grandchildren? or de fining what shall or shall not be an emancipation: it suffices here, that we go upon the particular circumstances of this case, that after so great a length of time, and such a desertion of it, this certificate shall be looked upon to be at an end, and as if it had never been given. And if so, then the apprenticeship of the pauper will have just the same effect as if no such certificate had ever been given at all; that is to say, he is settled in St. Mary's Burrow's Sett. Cas. 402.

[ocr errors]

So in the R. v. Frampton upon Severn, Tr. 20 Go. 3, the parish of Tretherne granted a certificate to the parish of Frampton upon Severn, acknowledging Job Minett and Ann his wife to be settled in Tretherne, under which certificate they lived in Frampton, till the latter end of 1753, or the beginning of 1754, when they voluntarily returned to Tretherne, and had afterwards a son named Samuel, born there. Job Minett, the father continued to live in Tretherne for seventeen or eighteen years; when, having a relation in Frampton dead, he went by himself (his wife being dead) to possess himself of the effects, and remained there about six months; when being taken ill, he was, by the parish of Tretherne,recommended to the Gloucester Infirmary, and there died. But before he went to Frampton, to take possession of his relation's effects, Samuel

[ocr errors]

Bb.

the son was hired for a year to Robert Virry, in Frampton, and lived with him for two or three years. On going out of Virry's service, he was hired again in Frampton to Richard. Clutterbuck, and lived with him for two or three years, and till after his father died. The son afterwards married and had a child, and his wife and child were the paupers who were removed by the two justices.-BY THE Court. The exact circum. stances of this case have not occurred before, though the prin ciple of desertion, by long disuse, is to be found in that ( Taunton. But here there was no faith given by the parish Frampton to the certificate, as to Samuel, whom they new heard of till he came there as an emancipated person. The ca seems to me much stronger than that of Taunton. Doug. Ri Svo. ed. 417. Cald. Cas. 77.

So in the K. v. Newington, Tr. 26 Geo. 3, John Smi with his wife, and five children, were removed from Newing to Mersham.-THE SESSIONS, on appeal, quashed that of and stated the following case: The father of the pauper sided at Newington about four years, under a certificate f "Mersham, during which time the pauper was born: the fa then moved with his whole family to the hundred of Hoo, tant about nine miles from Newington, and staid there for years; and from thence also moved with his whole famil Strood, distant eight miles from Newington, where he conti about four years, when he died there. The pauper, a year after the father's death, went to Newington, and hired himself (being unmarried) as a servant for a year, lived in the said parish of Newington the whole of the 'year under the said hiring, and, at the expiration of the year continued with the same master for another year, i said parish of Newington, as a yearly servant;' and then with the minister of Newington parish as a yearly servant fo years, and never gained a settlement elsewhere.-By Mansfield Ch. J. It is admitted, that there may exist a c which a certificate shall be considered as functus officio. Th Court ought to draw a line, in doing which it will be mi to consider what is the nature of a certificate. It seems

[ocr errors]

that a certificate by the parish from which the pauper ge another, is an indemnity to that other parish from the quences of permitting him to reside there;' therefore done its office the moment that residence is permanently end. A temporary absence for a particular purpose w discharge it; but when the pauper has left the certificat rish for years, and neither party has had any reliance up certificate, then it has done its duty, and has no longe operation. In the present case the pauper had left the cated parish for six years, without any intention of returni which it is manifest that the certificate was discharged. J. agreed.-Ashhurst J. also concurred, and said, it is ex ly desirable, for the sake of the public, that some certai should be established, which I think should be this : ‹ ⚫ intention of a certificate is only to indemnify the pa

« PreviousContinue »