« PreviousContinue »
turn with the certificate to Storrington (as above stated) until the time of the yearly hiring and service hereinafter stated, supported himself entirely by his daily labour, and lodged and boarded at his father's house in Storrington for which he paid his father 53. per week. About two years after the father's return to Storrington with the certificate, and while the fa. ther contiaged to reside under it, the pauper being then about J6 years of age, hired himself for a year to Mr. Brozone of Starrington, whom he had previously served for some time as a day labourer, and served the year out; after which he again worked for himself as a day-labourer, and lodged and boarded with his father on the same terms as before his service with Broane, until he married ; and from the time of his marriage he continued to reside at Storrington, but not having done any act to gain a settlement, other than as aforesaid, until the 23d of January last, when he became actually chargeable, he was re. Dored by the present order with his wife and family, to Patch: ing. The question was, Whether the pauper were resident in Storrington under the certificate granted to his father? for if the pauper were not included in the certificate, then his residence in Storrington was not protected by it, under the stat. 8&9W.3, c. 30*, and if not, he was not disqualified by the sobscquent stat. 9 & 10W. 3, c. 11 +, from gaining a settlement there by hiring and service. And, by lord Kenyon, Ch.
(after the case had been fully argued) This case proceeds on its own particular circumstances. Consider the situation of this family; the father, mother, and two of the younger children, who had been resident at Storrington, were removed by an order of justices to Patching: but to give them an opportunity of returning to Storrington, the parish-officers of Patching were applied to for a certificate, which was accordingly given. Now before, and at the time when this certificate was obtained, the pauper had worked as a day labourer, received his wages for his own use, had lodged in his father's house, and paid a weekly sume for that accommodation. The form of the certificatc too, is material; it was granted to the father, the mother, and the two younger children: but the pauper was not included, either in the order of removal or in the certificate, nor was it the meaning of the parties to include him. If indeed he wore under the disability of gaining a settlement by the 9 & 10 W.3, to be sure this is not one of the modes allowed by that act. But the question is, Whether he is to be considered as a certificated person Generally speaking, if a certificate be granted to
the head of a family, it extends to all the members of that mily: but it is competeut to the parties themselveš to marr the cxtent of a certificate ; and the certificate in question see to have been specially framel for the purpose of excluding pauper from the operation of it. It is not conceived in gené terms, but, after mentioning the father and mother, it goes to specify the two younger children, omitting the pauper, w was the cldest; and it is a knowi maxim expressio" unius exclusio alterius. Therefore, on the particular circumnatan of this case, I am of opinion, that the pauper was not resid at Storrington, under the certificate, and consequently not disabled" from gaining a settlement there by hiring and vice. Grose J. A certificate only protects three classes persons : those who are named in it; those who are part the family of the certiGcated person when it is granted ; and children born in the certificated parish after that time.: the pauper certainly does not come within either the first of third class. Nor was he part of his father's family, as far respects the certificate ; for the certificate does not mention name, though it does mention the names of the younger dren; and the parish officers declared that he was not inch in the former order of removal, which was the occasion of certificate, because he was capable of gaining'a livelihood himself. All the parties interested considered the pauperta sui juris when the certificate was granted, and therefore it not meant to include him; he was not a part of his fat family for the purpose of this certificate.-- Lawrence; J. stat. 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 11, has restrained those persons come into any parish by virtue of a certificate, frow gaini settlement, except in one of the two modes there pointed and it meant to restrain those persons whom they 'coola renovc. 'Ihcu the question is, Could the panper hare Temoved from Storrington, notwithstanding the certificate would the certificate have been conclusive on the pari Patching as to him? Itcertainly would not have cotichudod Decause it appears that it was intended to exclude hinr irod certificate at the time when it was granted.
Therefore, would not have been conclusive on the parish granting the tificate, it seems to follow that the pauper gained a settle in Storrington, by hiring and service.. --Order of sessions firmed. 7 Ter. Rep. 133.
A certificate, however, only includes the certificated. his wilc, aud those children who live with him, but dues no tend to grandchildren. ---Thus in the K. v. Darlington T Gio. 3, two justices removed Sarah the widow of T. Mi and her yeveti childreti, from All Saints to Darlington: the sions on appeai confirmed the order, and stated the follo case: -John Wilburn, the grandfather of the pauper's Band, being settled at Darlington, came into the parish Sainis, under a certificate from Darlington During his dence there (amongst other children) he had a son named mus, who lived in All Saints, as part of his fathable
1 1970 i 30
and without gaining any settlement there, until he married; ai. ter his marriage, he had several children, and (amongst others) Thomas, the husband of the pauper Sarah Milburn; which Thomas lived in All Saints till the time of his death. The last mentioned Thomas, the grandsun, when of the age of fourteen years, was hired and lived as a servant for three years in All Saints. The grandfather, some time hefore the grandson's scr. vice, returned with his wife to Darlington; leaving behind his son Thomas, with his family, and amongst them his grandson Thomas. The grandfather and his wife died in Darlington. Ncither Sarah the pauper or either of her children has, since the death of Thomas her husband, done any act to gain a settle. nent.-By lord Kenyon Ch. J. In this case two questions have been made: Ist, Whether by the grandfather's return to Darlington there was an end to the certificate? I am strongly inclined to think that that was not an abandonment. If all the lunily had, indeed, removed back, that would have been an abandonment; but as his son was left behind, it was a sort of pledge that the certificate was not intended to be abandoned. It is not necessary however, to determine upon that point, be. Cules or the vther question I am prepared to give a decis os stiam. And my opinion is founded on the words and fair meaning of the statute 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30. By the words of that act, the parish to which the certificate is granted is obliged to receive the certificated person, together with his or her fa. mily. Now what is the fair legal josport of the word family? It is true, that in construing a will, and where it is the inten. tion of the testator that it shall extend beyond the immediate children, it may have that operation : but that is not the sense in which it is used in this act. In common parlance, the famio ly consists of those who live under the same roof with the pater familias; those who form (if I may use the expression) his fireside. But when they branch out, and become the hcads of new catablishments, they ccase to be part of the father's family. I admit that a certificate extends to the son, on account of the positive words of the act of parliament, he being a part of the " father's family : but when he himself becomes the head of a family, then the words of the statute, public policy, and the convenience of mankind, require that he should no longer be considered as part of his father's faruily, or be protected by the certificate granted to his father.' Giving, therefore; full effect to the certificate as far as the words of the act, and the mtention of the legislature, go, I think it meets with its bound. ary line, when it has protected the family of the certificated person; that is, all those who live with the pater familias; and Consequently that this grun'ichild, who wus the son of the head of a distinct family, was not prevented gaining a settlement in All Saints, by luiring and service. Buller J. This case gives Tise to two Questions: Ist, Whether the certificate was at an ed by the grandfather's returning to Durlington?. 2dly, Whe. ther grandchildren ibc within the meaning of the certificate at all. Da the first point, I think that the certilicate was at an
end by the grandfather's return; it was originally granted him. The dan to whom a certificate is granted, is the pers wbom the legislature had in view; and being granted to him cording to the statute, it rightly includes his family; but family are those only who live with him. And as it happens the course of time that some of the children separate from father, if the father himself return to the parish granting certificate, I think that the certificate is at an end as to al them. On the second question, I perfectly agree with my ld ---Grose J. gave po opinion on the first question ; but on other question he declared himself to be clearly of the same nion. ---Both orders quashed. 4 Term Rep. 797.
And wheu the son of a certificated person becomes ema pated from his father's family, he ceases to be under the tection of the certificate, and may gain a settlement in the ficated parish in like manner as any other uncertificated per ...Thus in the K. v. Heath, Ed. 34 Geo. 3, the grandfathe the pauper being settled at Heath, came into the paris Mansfield Woodhouse, under a certificate: he resided under certificate at Mansfield Woodhouse for several years, and the time of his death: about two years and an balf after the tificate was granted, lie had a son born, namely, the fathe the pauper : this son continued to reside wilh his fathe Mansfield Woodhouse, until he attained the age of 21 ye when he married and constantly afterwards lived in a sepa house at Mansfield Woodhouse, and had a child, the pauper, there. He also occupied with his house, for three or four a close cf land in Mansfield IVoodhouse, both together being der the value of 101. for which he from the time of his marr except for the last three or four years, had been rated to, had paid, the poor assessments for Mansfield Woodhous
The Sessions were of opinion, that the certificate was not charged as to this son, and confirmed the order whereby daughter, the pauper, had been removed from Mans Woodhouse to Heath. --But by Tue Court. There canna the least doubt on this point, so recently after the decisid the case of the K. v. Darlington, within which determins this case falls. Iu this case it has been contended, that who has left his father's house, is married, has a family own, and is himselt the head of a new family, nevertheless tinues to be part of his father's family; but according to the of the K. v. Darlinglon, he ceased to be part of his fall family when he married and lived separate from his fathe The Court were therefore clearly of opinion, that a settle was gained in Mansfield Woodhouse by the son, who pú continued part of his father's family, but was then become head of a new family; and consequently that the order of ons onght to be quashed. Both orders quasheil. 5 Term Rep.
Dat is a parish certiticate be granted to a man and his dren, naming such children particulurly, the certificated al is protected thereby, although one of the children after marries and lives separate from his father.---Thus in the
Testerton, Ea. 33 Geo. 3, Thomas Wood, the father of the pauper, being settled at Testerlon, came by certificate from Testerion to Great Ryburgh: the certificate acknowledged, that the said Thomas Wood, with Hannah his wife, and their seten children by name, of whom the present pauper was one, vere inhabitants legally settled in Testerton. The pauper live with his father in Great Ryburgh, until he was of the age or 20, when he let himself to a farmer in Great Ryburgh, for a year, and served that year: the year after he lived as a labourer in Great Ryburgh, and resided with his father there : he then let himself again for a year, and the same in Grcat Ryburgh, as also the following year, when he again returned to his father in Great Ryburgh, and resided with him 12 months, and worked as a labourer, avd 'then married, and lived in Great Ryburgh, but never with his father after such marriage, -The pauper and his wife and four children were removed from Great Ryburgh to Testerton, and the sessions on ap. peal confirmed the order.-BY THE COURT. The decisions of the justices at the sessions in this case is not contrary to that of the K. v. Darlington; there it was held, that the certificate which was granted to the certificated man, extended to his wife and family; to all those who formed a part of the family of the poder familias; but that when his son became the head of a new family, and had children of his owo, their residence in the certificated parish was not protected by it ; but here the pauper is mentioned by name, in the certificate itself; and he has never gained any settlement or lived out of the certificated Pinsh, since it was given.-Order of sessions confirmed. 5 Tere Rep. 258.
And the like was determined in the K. v. Bath Easton, Ilil. Ter. 40 Geo. 3. which was as follows: 6 Edward Guy the grandfather of the pauper being settled at Bath Euston went to live in Box under a certificate from Bath Easton, dated October 21st, 1797, testifying the said Ediouri Gay, Deborah his wife and Edward and Thomas, their children, to be parishioners of and legally settled in Bath Easton : Edward the sou now 80 years of age continued to live with his father in Box uutil his marriage. He was married there and had issue Henry Guy the panper. The pauper at the age of 16 was, hired to Mrs. Shepherd in Box as a yearly servant, and lives with her up? wards of a twelve month. He then worked at day work in Bor, then in Corsham parish, sleeping constantly at his father's in Bor; and afterwards when of age he lived several years with a masier in Bor under a yearly biring at 5 guineas and victuals; after which service he married his present wife, by whom he had | - everal children mentioned in the order of removal, Tue | QUESTION for the consideration of the court was, whether the
pauper by such hiring and service gained a settlement in Bor. BE THE COURT, the distinction was taken in K. v. Testerton, between those cases, where the certificate is granted to a person and his family generally, and those where the son is: mentioned oy name in the certificato; that in the former a grandson is