Page images

which it is giren during the residence of the pauper, whenever he leaves the certificated parish without any intention of re. torping, the certificate should be taken to be at an end.'Buller J. likewise concurred, and said, that in all cases whenever a pauper returns to the parish again, they shoull 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 in the said parish of St. Sepulchre, and took a house, where he resided for two years and upwards, during which time the pauper sag 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 fainily to St. Sepulchre ; took lodgings in that parish, and polled at the general clection for Northampton. He asterwards removed to another house in the same. parish, wherс he continued till 1770: the pauper's father and his family then returned to St. Michael's, and staid Diere 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 mih back to Northampton,' and was followed in a few weeks by his wile, who sent his goods after him, to the parish of All

Saints in Northampton, where they lived six 'mon hs, and I 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. Min chaels, and the pauper afterwards resided with his father,

under the indentures of apprenticeship, upwards of one year Sin St. Michael's.-Tue 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 certi. Lificate, and that the man himself returning to the certificated

parish at three different times, shewed that he always cousidered vnit 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 e of S4 Michael, this inference is to be drawn, namely, that the justees found the law upon this subject so perfectly settled in the case of the K. v. Newington, that they thought it ought

tot to be disturbed : and I perfectly agree with them : in that luceave it was settled, that a voluntary removal from the certi

ucated parish, mot 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 rc


moval I understand to be where the person goes from the ce tificated parish to make a visit elsewhere, or on occasional b siness, leaving his family behind him in that parish, as beit the place of his domicile ; but in this case the pauper's 1

ther went, taking all his family with him, to the certificati parish, where he took a house, and resided for two years: afterwards went back to the certificated parish, and again turned to the parish by which the certificate was grant where he continued three years more, making the last par the place of his permanent residence. On the ground, the fore, that he left the parish of St. Michael's not for a te porary purpose only, but with a view of making the cel ficatiug parish the place of his permanent residence, and being able to distinguish this case from tlie K. v. Neting which I wish to adopt to its fullest extent, I am 'of opini that the order of sessions should be affirmed. In this case, deed, there is another ground on which the order of sessi must be affirmed, for tlre pauper gained a settlement in a ti parish, that of All Saints in Northampton, by.serving t more than forty days uoder the indentures of apprentices! However, I do not proceed merely on this particular grou but on the broad general ground established in the Neting case, namely, that the certificate to the pauper's father was charged by his leaving the parish to which the certificate given - Ashhurst J. The principle laid down in the N ington case was,' that when the party leaves the certific parish without any intention, at the time, or returniog

the certificate is at an end. Now here, when the pauper ther first left the parish to which the certificate was granted,

went into the parish which had granted the certificate, w he resided with his family for two years. He was theo d 6 ciled in the parish, aud when he went a second time to

Michael's, that parish should have required a fresh certific 5 Term Rep. 526.

But the certificate is not vacated by a voluntary absenc the party afterwards returns voluntarily to the same hou the parish certificated to, and 'to "a branch of the saine la there residing.--Thus in the K. v. Keel, tit. 22 Geo, 3, pauper was born iu the parish of Bedworth, where her fa and mother resided under a regular certificate from the p of Keel: 'some few years after she was born, her father and ther died at Bedworth aforesaid, where she remained after death, till she was about seven years of age, with her brot who was named in the said certificate; and then voluntarily to the said parish of Keel, where she remained till she was teen ycars of age during which time she was maintained the parish of Keel, and then hired herself for a year, served the said year, and two or three others in the parish of Keel; at the expiration of which last service returned voluntarily to the purish of Bedworth, to said brother's house at Bedworth aforesaid and was al wards hired to one Thomas Pørker of - the said pariati ofl

[ocr errors]

**89, dt mo 7900 Nokia 5. osa) br.12755 worth for a year, and serred 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 jua 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 functus officio ? The fact is, that

the pauper returns, and returns volontarily, 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 apo pear to me to be circumstances in the case sufficient to warrant us in saying, that it was so with respect to the panper.-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. 141. 107

The like was also decided in the. K, y. Ingworth, Mic, Terci 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 * 15, 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 Bricklund and completed his service at the expiration of the year he returned to Ingworth, where his father still resid, od under the certificate, and lived in his said father's house about a month, during which time he worked as a day labour.) er at Brickland, and paid his father for his board; and when he returned to Ingworth be did not consider himself as going with a view to the certificate at the expiration of the month, he let himself for a year to a person in Ingworth and lived in bis service two years. BY THE COURT if the payper 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 sot returned to him, "8 Term Rep., 339, 70 stiisa bu

Afso the granting a second certificate to a pauper, will dis. charge a former one given by the same parish. See the K. Kli Birdhan , 2 Boti, const's ed. 74., Caldecot's Cases, 500, and the k. . St. Peter in Derbyts i Term Rep. 218.95 A lo a

L 192 32011110 *Thie was nba hiring and service for a year, otherwise the pauper would liave gained a settlement in Bricklanu. -130 lo tiec pb268 stipra s see p89 supra, baada EW

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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

But the parish, in order to get rid of the certificate, mu clearly shew some matter whereby it has been discharged, f the court cannot presume such discharge from other facts. Thus in the K. v. Warblington, Ea. 26 Geo. 3, the father the pauper abont the year 1736, came into the parish of H tant with a certificate from the parish of Warblington. the 20th of October 1748, the lord of the manor of Havant a court baron, by copy of court-roll, granted to him and heirs a parcel of waste ground within the parish of Hæc upon which he entered and built a house, and lived therein several years : having mortgaged the premises for 100. heir at law, after his death, sold the equity of redemp thereof to the mortgagee for 201. 175.—The steward of manor, who produced the court-rolls, and who was a wit for the appellants, never knew the lord to make any • grant without a pecuniary consideration. And it appe that the value of the piece of ground at the time of the did not exceed thirty or forty shillings : ,that at the time o said grant the pauper's father was

a very poor and ind man, living in the said parish of Havant. And it also app ed, by inspection of the court-books, that it is not custo to express, in the surrenders or admissions, the consider for granting the same; ' and no evidence whatever was g

whether any pecuniary consideration was given for the

grant, or whether the said grant was voluntary, and wi a pecuniary consideration *.' In the copy of the adm there were these words, ' Fine one shilling, heriot one shi

quit-rent one shilling ;' and in the margin of all the was inserted, “ Fine one. shilling."-Willes J. The que is merely this, ' Whether, by any thing that has happene

parish of Warblington can get rid of this certificate i not, it still continues in force. Then the question is, W this grant, so made by the lord of the manor to the pa father, was a voluntary grant, or was made for a valuable sideration ? I think the proof lies on the appellants to

that this was a voluntary grant. The parish who g must get rid of the certificate:' and if that can only be by presumption, it must stand good, for we cannot pr either one way or the other.--Ashhurst J. A certificate once given, it is necessary for the parish who wish to of it to shew some matter in discharge thereof. They then to have shewn that this was a voluntary grant, and mot lio upon the other side to have proved that this was a


For a voluntary grant of an estate,

and forty days residence in sufficient to gain a settlement. See p. 313, 314 şupra,

for a valnable 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 case; 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 Coart must take it for granted that it is right*. 1 Term Rep. 241.

And the certificate act is not restrained, but extends to all classes and descriptions of the poor.–Thus in the K. v. St. Pe. ter 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 gronnd situate in the parish of Lyncombe and JVidcombe, 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, heing 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. Stute 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 ques. tion 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 Mans

field. To be sure, it is a radical defect in the system of the too 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 oh could not find work at home, was prohibited from seeking it

abroad. The legislature endeavoured to cure this evil by inbitroducing 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 purchasc. “See this · point of the case io p. 319, supra,

« PreviousContinue »