4. Bastards born after an

of a bastard child, such bastard is not settled in the parish where born, but shall go with the mother to the parish where she is going by virtue of the order. Cas. Sett. & Rem. 41.

So also if a bastard be born after, an order of removal is made out, and before the mother can be sent to her place of order, but be- settlement, being hindered by water or otherwise, such bastard is not by such birth settled where born, but shall go to the mother's parish. Q. v. Ickleford, Mic. 10 Ann. 1 Sess. Cas. 32.

fore an actual

removal.

Mother returning after reBoval.

Mother deli

But if a single woman with child be removed from A to B, and afterwards privately and of her own accord returns into the parish of A, and is there delivered of a bastard child, it seems, according to the opinion of Sir John Strange, that the settlement of such child is in the parish where it was born, and not in that to which the mother was removed; for he observes, that if she returns of her own accord, it makes no more than the common case of a bastard born in the parish of A, when the mother is settled in another parish, which settlement of the mother was never thought to be the settlement of the bastard; and he adds, that he does not see that it makes any dif ference that she returned to the parish from whence she was removed, any more than if she had rambled into any other parish. 1 Strange, 476.

Aud in the case of the K. v. Astley, Ilil. 25 Geo. 3. where vered of a child a woman big with child of a bastard, without any fraud, went in another with the knowledge, consent, and approbation of the overrish, being sent seers, where her legal settlement was, and where she then reby her own pa- sided, to a town distant about eight miles, in order to find out without fraud; the father of the child; and on her return home, and be in order to find fore she could reach her own parish, was suddenly and unex.

rish officers,

the father.

5. Bastards born in guoi.

pectedly delivered of the child in a public highway; it was contended that the birth of the child in the other parish was occasioned by the officers of the parish where she was settled, and that the mother being sent by them on the public service of their parish, it ought to be charged with the child; and the case was likened to a child born in gaol, or pending an order of removal afterwards reversed, or during the removal on the road before the order has been served.-But by Lord Mansfield. When a bas tard is born pending an order or in gaol, or there is any fraud, these are exceptious to the general rule, but in all other cases the birth decides the settlement. 2 Bolt, Const's ed. 10. Culdecot's Cases, 559.

It has also been resolved, that if a woman big with child be sent to the house of correction, and be there delivered of a bastard, the child shall be sent to the parish from which the mother was sent; for she is put into the house of correction only for safe custody. 2 Bulstrode, 358. 1 Sess. Cus. 99.

So in the case of Elsing v. Hereford, Hil. 2 Geo. 1. a bastard was born in the county gaol, and the court resolved that its setMement was with the mother. 1 Sess. Cas. 99,

industry.

Also by 20 Geo. 3. c. 36, "All bastard children born in the 6 Bastards born "house of industry of any hundred or other district, incor- in the house of "porated by act of parliament for the relief and employ"ment of the poor, shall be deemed to belong to the parish "or place where the mother of such bastard child was legally "settled."

So by 17 Geo. 2. c. 5, where any woman wandering and 7. Bastards born begging, shall be delivered of a child in any parish or place to of a vagrant which she does not belong, and thereby becometh chargeable mother. to the same, the churchwardens or overseers may detain her till they can safely convey her to a justice of the peace: and if such woman shall be detained and conveyed to a justice as aforesaid, the child of which she is delivered, if a bustard, shall not be settled in the place where so born, nor be sent thither by a vagrant pass, but the settlement of such woman shall be deemed the settlement of such child. s. 25.

So also by 13 Geo. 3. c. 82, no bastard child born in any 8. Bastards born lying-in hospital shall be settled in the parish wherein such in lying-in hos. hospital shall be situated; but every such child shall follow the pitals. mother's settlement*. s. 5.

Likewise by 13 Geo. 2. c. 29, for regulating the Foundling 9. Bastards sent Hospital, it is enacted, that no child received into such hospital, to the Foundshall by virtue thereof gain any settlement in the patish. ling Hospital.

And if from the facts stated, it appears by a fair conclusion, Child of a sethat a child is a bastard, it shall be settled where born; for in cond marriage, the case of the K.▾. Lubbenham, Ea. 31 Geo. 3. two justices the first husband living, removed Elizabeth Hutchins, the wife of Thomas Hutchins settled where (who was then absent from her) and Hepziba her daughter, from born. Lubbenham to Oxendon. On appeal, the sessions quashed the order, and stated a case, whereby it appeared among other matters, that the pauper Elizabeth was married about seventeen years ago to Hutchins, who was settled at Oxendon; that two years afterwards he went abroad, and five years after that, the said Elizabeth (hearing that he was dead) was married by banns to Thomas Ponton, settled at Lubbenham; at which place Hepziba was born during their cohabitation together, and there baptized as the daughter of the said Thomas Ponton, and Elizabeth his wife. That afterwards Hutchins the first husband returned, whilst Ponton and Elizabeth were residing together as man and wife.-By lord Kenyon Ch. J. (in which the other judges concurred)—There is no doubt but that the second marriage was void, and consequently that the settlement of the pauper Elizabeth continued where her first husband was settled. I am therefore of opinion that the order of sessions, as far as it respects the wife, should be quashed, but affirmed as to the child, because the fair conclusion from all the facts stated

* See the title LYING-IN HOSPITALS, in vol. iii. for the particular regulations contained in this act,

Bastard born

ficate.

is, that she was a bastard.---Order of sessions quashed as to the mother, but affirmed as to the child. 4 Term Rep. 251,

But the bastard of a certificate person is settled in the place under a certi- of its birth-For in the case of the K. v. New Windsor, Tr. 5 Geo. 1. The parish of White Waltham gave a CERTIFICATE* to a man and a woman who, at the time the certificate was given, was supposed to be his wife. Under this certificate they went to reside in the parish of New Windsor, where they had six children. It afterwards appeared that they were never married; and the question upon an order of removal was, Whether, as the children were bastards, they should, under these cir. cumstances, be settled in the parish of New Windsor, where they were born, or in the parish of White Waltham, where their parents were settled? And THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that the bastard of a certificate person is settled in the place of its birth; for it is not such issue as will follow the settlement of its father or mother; neither is such bastard his or her child within the intention of the statute, so as to be sent back with the parent. 1 Strange, 186.

But in this case, as the parish had given a certificate with the man and woman, as husband and wife, the court then held that such certificate was conclusive upon them, and that they could not be admitted to dispute the validity of the marriage; and therefore, they adjudged that the six children being actually chargeable, they ought to be sent back to the parish that granted the certificate. 1 Strange, 186.

However, the like question came under debate again in the case of the K. v. Hilton, Tr. Ter. 16 Geo. 2. and that case was as follows: A single woman went into the parish of Lydlinch, with a certificate from Hilton; lived there a year, and then had a bastard child. It was objected, that the bastard's settlement was in the parish where it was born, and that it could not be sent to the place which gave the certificate, as a legitimate child might have been.-On the other side it was contended, that partus sequitur ventrem, and that the certificate act made no difference between legitimate and illegitimate children. Lee, Ch. J. This case seems to depend entirely on the statute 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30, which obliges the parish to receive a certificated person with his or her family of children, and to suffer them to continue there till actually chargeable; for then, indeed, a certificated person, as also bis children, though born in the parish, may be removed. But bastard children cannot be considered as the children of the certificated person: they are nobody's children; they are filii populi.-In the case of New Windsor, the court were of the same opinion; but as the parish of White Waltham had certified that the mother was the wife of the father of the children, it was thought that such cer、

* See 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30,under REMOVALS, infra, ia respect of certi ficates in particular.

tificate concluded the parish, and prevented them from proving the contrary. I know of no case that considers bastards as the children of any one, and therefore I think that a bastard cannot be removed from the place where born, under a notion of its being the child of a certificated person.- Chapple, Justice, concurred, and said, that the words "family" and "children," in the certificate act, must mean legitimate children, so that bastards are not even within the words of the act.-Wright, Justice, said, that in this case partus non sequitur ventrem, and therefore a bastard is, in general, settled where born.-And Denison, Justice, being of the same opinion, the order, removing the bastard to the mother's settlement, was quashed. 2 Strange, 1168. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 187.

So in the K. v. Wyke, Tr. 19 & 20 Geo. 2.—Sarah Catton, the mother of John Catton the pauper, came from Shelfe to Hipperholme by certificate, being then pregnant with a bastard child (the said John Catton), and was afterwards delivered of him at Hipperholm. The certificate undertook that the parish of Shelfe should provide for her and her child, whenever they should become chargeable. It was contended, that this case was clearly distinguishable from the case of the K. v. Hilton: for here the woman was stated to be then pregnant, and the certificate expressly undertook to provide for her and her child. So that this very child was in contemplation, no other child being named or hinted at. To this it was answered, that this certificate, undertaking to provide for her and her child, must mean a child in being; and if she had no other child, the matter should have been stated specially.-And Lee, Ch. J. and Wright J. agreed that they must take the child referred to by the certificate to be a legitimate child then in being.--And Mr. J. Foster observed (to which observation the other Justices agreed), that it did not at all appear, that the parish who gave the certificate knew that the woman was then with child; and he added, that there were many instances, where women were near their time, without being known to be so. The counsel for Hipperholm then proposed that it should go back to the sessions to be more fully stated; but their opponents said, and the court agreed, that this could not be done without consent; and the counsel for Wyke refusing to consent, the court were of opinion that the rule must be made absolute, and the order of sessions was quashed; and the original order of the two justices, adjudging the settlement to be at Hipperholm, where the pauper was born, affirmed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 264.

But if a certificate undertake in express terms to provide for the child that the woman certified is then pregnant with, such child, though born a bastard, shall be settled in the mother's parish, and not in the parish where born: for in the case of the K.. Ipsley, Mic. Ter. 10 Geo. 3.-A woman was certificated from Studley to Ipsley in the following words: To the 'churchwardens and overscers of the poor of the parish of Ipsley: We the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the

<

parish of Studley, do hereby certify, own, and acknowledge Anne Causier, spinster, and the child or children that she now goeth with, to be our inhabitants, legally settled with us in our said parish of Studley; and if at any time hereafter the said Anne Causier, or her child or children which she now goeth with, shall become chargeable to and ask relief of your said parish of Ipsley, we the said churchwardens and over. seers of the poor of our said parish of Studley do hereby promise for ourselves and successors, that we will, when requested by any of you, receive, relieve, and provide for them, as < our inhabitants, according as the law in that case requires.' The child was born at Ipsley, within about a month after she came to reside there under the certificate. It was argued, that the certificate in this case could not operate as to the unborn child, but that the child was notwithstanding settled in the place where it was born: that this is not a certificate within the act of 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30. The undertaking relates to a non-entity, an embrio. An unborn child cannot be personally certificated. It is no part of the parent's family. And the act obliges only the certifying parish to provide for the pauper mentioned in the certificate, together with his or her family; and a bastard, in the sense of the act, is part of no person's family. But THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that the parish of Studley was bound by this certificate, which takes notice of the woman's being then unmarried and with child; and acknowledges the child she then went with to be legally settled with them in their parish. And lord Mansfield observed, that the woman was very big with child; and was understood by both parishes to be so. And Studley expressly promised to provide for the infant she then went with; therefore they ought to be bound by their certificate. An infant in ventre sa mere may be, to a variety of purposes, considered as born. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 650.

So in the case of the K. v. Tostock, Hil. Geo. 3.-Edward Parkinson was born at Tostock, of the body of Elizabeth Parkinson, spinster; and Edward Jerman, who was settled at Isleham, but then resided at Tostock, was the reputed father. Soon after the birth of this bastard child, its parents intermarried; and after the said marriage, the overseers of Tostock desired Jerman to get a certificate from Isleham, and they accordingly applied to the parish officers of Islesham,and they, without being informed that the child was a bastard, gave him a certificate for himself, his wife, and this child, whereby they acknowledged the said Edward, Elizabeth, his wife, and Ed. ward their son, to be inhabitants of the parish of Isleham. The question was, Whether under these circumstances the child was settled by birth or parentage? And THE COURT held, that the parish of Isleham was bound by their certificate, and was thereby estopped to say that the child was not the son of the pauper; and therefore that the child was entitled to the father's settlement, the same as if it had in fact been a legitimate child. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 737.