6

which it is given during the residence of the pauper, whenever he leaves the certificated parish without any intention of re "turning, the certificate should be taken to be at an end.'Buller J. likewise concurred, and said, that in all cases when'ever a pauper returns to the parish again, they should re. 'quire from him a new certificate, and a new indemnity.'Order of sessions affirmed. 1 Term Rep. 35.

So in the K. v. St. Michael's in Coventry, Hil. 34 Geo. 3, in 1754, the pauper's father, with his family, came to reside in the parish of St. Michael, under a certificate from the parish of St. Sepulchre, and resided there three years: he then quitted the parish of St. Michael, and went with his family into the said parish of St. Sepulchre, and took a house, where he resided for two years and upwards, during which time the pauper was born: then the father with his family, returned again to St. Michael's, and staid there till the latter end of the year 1767; and then went back with his family to St. Sepulchre ; took lodgings in that parish, and polled at the general election for Northampton. He afterwards removed to another house in the same parish, where he continued till 1770: the pauper's father and his family then returned to St. Michael's, and staid there till 1776: during the last residence in St. Michael's, the 'pauper was bound an apprentice to his father' soon after 1776, the pauper's father took the pauper with him, and went back to Northampton,' and was followed in a few weeks by his wife, who sent his goods after him, to the parish of All Saints in Northampton, where they lived six months, and 'worked as a weaver, and the pauper resided with them :' the pauper's father then removed with his family into the parish of St. Peter in Northampton, and the pauper resided in that parish more than forty days.' The pauper's father, with his family, left Northampton in 1777, and went back to St. Mi chael's, and the pauper afterwards resided with his father, 'under the indentures of apprenticeship, upwards of one year in St. Michael's.-THE SESSIONS were unanimously of opinion, that the settlement of the pauper was in the parish of St. Mi chael-It being moved to quash the order of sessions, it was contended, that the mere circumstance of going away from the certificated parish, is not sufficient to put an end to the certificate; and that the man himself returning to the certificated parish at three different times, shewed that he always considered it in force.--But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. From the concluding part of the case, that the Court of Sessions were unanimously of opinion, that the settlement of the pauper is in the parish *' of St. Michael,' ̧ this inference is to be drawn, namely, that the justices found the law upon this subject so perfectly settled in the case of the K. v. Newington, that they thought it ought bot to be disturbed: and I perfectly agree with them in that case it was settled, that a voluntary removal from the certi'fcated parish, not indeed for a temporary purpose only, but when the residence there is permanently at an end, will put an end to the certificate. A mere temporary re

Bb

moval I understand to be where the person goes from the cer tificated parish to make a visit elsewhere, or on occasional bu siness, leaving his family behind him in that parish, as being the place of his domicile; but in this case the pauper's fa "ther went, taking all his family with him,' to the certificating parish, where he took a house, and resided for two years; he afterwards went back to the certificated parish, and again re. turned to the parish by which the certificate was granted, where he continued three years more, making the last parish. the place of his permanent residence." On the ground, therefore, that he left the parish of St. Michael's not for a tem porary purpose only, but with a view of making the certificating parish the place of his permanent residence, and not being able to distinguish this case from the K.. Newington which I wish to adopt to its fullest extent, I am of opinion, that the order of sessions should be affirmed. In this case, indeed, there is another ground on which the order of sessions must be affirmed, for the pauper gained a settlement in a third parish, that of All Saints in Northampton, by serving there more than forty days under the indentures of apprenticeship. However, I do not proceed merely on this particular ground, but on the broad general ground established in the Newington case, namely, that the certificate to the pauper's father was dis charged by his leaving the parish to which the certificate was given-Ashhurst J. The principle laid down in the Newington case was, that when the party leaves the certificated parish without any intention, at the time, of returning to it, the certificate is at an end. Now here, when the pauper's fa ther first left the parish to which the certificate was granted, he went into the parish which had granted the certificate, where he resided with his family for two years. He was then domiciled in the parish, and when he went a second time to St. Michael's, that parish should have required a fresh certificate 5 Term Rep. 526.

But the certificate is not vacated by a voluntary absence, the party afterwards returns voluntarily to the same house in the parish certificated to, and to a branch of the same family there residing. Thus in the K. v. Keel, Hil. 22 Geo. 3, the pauper was born in the parish of Bedworth, where her father and mother resided under a regular certificate from the parish of Keel: some few years after she was born, her father and mo ther died at Bedworth aforesaid, where she remained after their death, till she was about seven years of age, with her brother, who was named in the said certificate; and then voluntarily went to the said parish of Keel, where she remained till she was four. teen years of age; during which time she was maintained by the parish of Keel, and then hired herself for a year, and served the said year, and two or three others in the said parish of Keel; at the expiration of which last service she returned voluntarily to the parish of Bedworth, to her said brother's house at Bedworth aforesaid and was afters wards hired to one Thomas Parker of the said parish of Bed

edt mot zang nogen ad end of boste ol worth for a year, and served him such year in the said parish. of Bedworth, and was then hired for and served another year. with Eusebius Holmes in the same parish, of Bedworth. The question was, Whether the pauper returned to the certificated parish under the faith of the certificate?-Lord Mansfield in... clined to think, that she returned independently and as sui ju ris, rather than to her old home and parish, and under the certificate. But Willes J, thought the inquiry here, must, be, Whether the certificate was fanctus officio ? The fact is, that the pauper returns, and returns voluntarily, to the house in which she had before resided under the certificate, which ever since had belonged and which then belonged to her brother, who was at that time resident there under the certificate.' It certainly was not discharged as to him; and there do not ap pear to me to be circumstances in the case sufficient to warrant us in saying, that it was so with respect to the pauper.- -Lord Mansfield. I am satisfied, The voluntary return to the house of her brother, who was then resident under the certificate, had escaped me. The other judges concurred. Cald. Cas. 144.

The like was also decided in the K. v. Ingworth, Mic. Ter 40 Geo. 3, which was as follows; in the year 1781, the father of the pauper went with his wife and the pauper as part of his family to reside in Ingworth, under a certificate, from Erpingham: in the year 1787, the pauper then of the age of 16, let himself to a man of Erpingham, and served two years. as a yearly servant; he then let himself to another master at Erpingham and served him as a yearly servant for a year, 'He afterwards let himself from three, days after Michaelmas. 1790 to the Michaelmas following to another master at Brickland and completed his service at the expiration of the year he returned to Ingworth, where his father, still resid, ed under the certificate, and lived in his said father's house about a month, during which time he worked as a day labour-a er at Brickland, and paid his father for his board; and, when he returned to Ingworth he did not consider himself as going with a view to the certificate; at the expiration of the month be let himself for a year to a person in Ingworth and lived in his service two years...BY THE COURT if the pauper in this case had gained a settlement in a third parish, there would have been no question as to his settlement in Ingworth; but there is no ground for presuming as in the K. v. Newington, that the parties had abandoned this certificate, for the pauper's father was resident at Ingworth under the certificate when the Sou returned to him, 8 Term Rep. 339 to dairaq bisa dat Also the granting a second certificate to a pauper, will dis charge a former one given by the same parish. See the v Birdham 2 Bott Const's ed. 74, Caldecot's Cases, 500, and the K. v. St. Peter in Derby Term Rep. 218.5A 10 day

*This was not a hiring and service for a year, otherwise the pauper 0107 would have gained a settlement in Brickland.

boll to tseep bass supra see p. 89 supra band abge>

Also the certificate is discharged by the party's coming to an estate of his own, and residing thereon for forty da.s, as has been observed under the head Settlement by having an

estate.

But the parish, in order to get rid of the certificate, must clearly shew some matter whereby it has been discharged, for the court cannot presume such discharge from other facts.Thus in the K. v. Warblington, Ea. 26 Geo. 3, the father of the pauper about the year 1736, came into the parish of Ha vant with a certificate from the parish of Warblington. On the 20th of October 1748, the lord of the manor of Havant, at a court baron, by copy of court-roll, granted to him and his heirs a parcel of waste ground within the parish of Hacant, upon which he entered and built a house, and lived therein for several years having mortgaged the premises for 100%. his heir at law, after his death, sold the equity of redemption thereof to the mortgagee for 201. 17s.-The steward of the manor, who produced the court-rolls, and who was a witness for the appellants, never knew the lord to make any such grant without a pecuniary consideration.' And it appeared that the value of the piece of ground at the time of the grant did not exceed thirty or forty shillings: that at the time of the said grant the pauper's father was a very poor and indigent man, living in the said parish of Havant. And it also appear. ed, by inspection of the court-books, that it is not customary to express, in the surrenders or admissions, the consideration for granting the same; and no evidence whatever was given, whether any pecuniary consideration was given for the said 'grant, or whether the said grant was voluntary, and without ' a pecuniary consideration *.' In the copy of the admission there were these words, Fine one shilling, heriot one shilling, quit-rent one shilling; and in the margin of all the copies was inserted," Fine one, shilling."-Willes J. The question is merely this, Whether, by any thing that has happened, the parish of Warblington can get rid of this certificate? If not, it still continues in force. Then the question is, Whether this grant, so made by the lord of the manor to the pauper's father, was a voluntary grant, or was made for a valuable con sideration? I think the proof lies on the appellants to shew that this was a voluntary grant. The parish who granted must get rid of the certificate:' and if that can only be done by presumption, it must stand good, for we cannot presume either one way or the other.--Ashhurst J. A certificate being once given, it is necessary for the parish who wish to get rid of it to shew some matter in discharge thereof. They ought then to have shewn that this was a voluntary grant, and it did not lie upon the other side to have proved that this was a grant

*For a voluntary grant of an estate, and forty days residence there on, is sufficient to gain a settlement. See p. 313, 314 supra,

for a valuable consideration; whoever wants to set aside that which has once existed, must shew something which destroys it-Buller J. The present case is very clear. The first question is, On whom the onus probandi lies? It has been said here, that it was the duty of the respondents to make out their but I think it was incumbent on the appellants to have 'satisfied the sessions that this was a voluntary grant, and they not having done so, cannot now impeach the order;' for if it does not appear on the face of it to be wrong, the Court must take it for granted that it is right*. 1 Term Rep.

case;

241.

And the certificate act is not restrained, but extends to all classes and descriptions of the poor.—Thus in the K. v. St. Peter and St. Paul, in Bath, Tr. 22 Geo. 3, the parishioners of the parish of St. Peter and St. Paul, in conjunction with the parishioners of the parish of St. James in the city of Bath, purchased a piece of ground situate in the parish of Lyncombe and Widcombe, and built thereon a house for the reception and maintenance of the poor of the several parishes of St. Peter and Paul and St. James there. The pauper, William Hill, being impotent and unable to work, was, together with all the other paupers belonging to the said parish of St. Peter and Paul, removed from that parish to the new-erected house in Lyncombe and Widcombe, where he and the rest of the poor of that parish have been ever since maintained at the expence of the parish of St. Peter and Paul, and without any charge to the parish of Lyncombe and Widcombe. The said Hill and 'all the other paupers, who went into the said new-built house, 'carried with them certificates directed to the said parish of 'Lyncombe and Widcombe, signed by the parish-officers of St. Peter and Paul, and allowed by two justices, as the sta 'tute directs, and which were delivered to one of the offi 'cers of the parish of Lyncombe and Widcombe. Notwithstanding the certificate of the pauper William Hill, the parish officers of Lyncombe and Widcombe obtained the order in question for his removal, though he had not been chargeable to their parish. The sessions confirmed the order, being of opinion, that the pauper was not the object of the certificate act, and consequently not protected by it.'-By lord Mansfield. To be sure, it is a radical defect in the system of the poor laws, more especially in a commercial and manufacturing country, that the poor should be all confined to their respective parishes. Possessed of industry, vigour, and skill, a man who could not find work at home, was prohibited from seeking it abroad. The legislature endeavoured to cure this evil by in⚫troducing certificates; under which the pauper is at liberty

But the Court, on the whole circumstances of the case, inclined to the opinion, that it was to be considered as a purchase. "See this point of the case in p. 319. supra,