« PreviousContinue »
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. 4. Rastards So also if a bastard be born after an order of removal is born after an made out, and before the mother can be sent to her place of order, but be, settlement, being hindered by water or otherwise, such basfore an actual removal.
tard 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. Mother return. But if a single woman with child be removed from A to B, jog alter re and afterwards privately and of her own accord returns into Bioval.
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 base tard; and he adds, that he does not see that it makes any difference that she returned to the parish from whence she was removed, any more than if she had raunbled into any other pa.
rish. 1 Strunge, 476. Mother deli. Aud in the case of the K. v. Astley, Hil. 25 Geo. 3. where verea of a child a woman big with child of a bastard, without any fraud, went in another, with the knowlucige, consent, and approbation of the overrisin, being sent
seers, where her legal settlement was, and where she then reby her own paJish officers,
sided, to a town distant about eight miles, in order to find out without franci; 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. the faller.
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 servod. But by Lord Mansfield. When a bas. tard is born pending an order or in gaol, or there is any fraud, these are exceptions to the general rule, but in all other cases the birth decides the settlement. 2 Boit, Const's ed. 10. Culo
decot's Cases, 559. 5. Bastards born It has also been resolved, that if a woman big with child be della pavi.
sent to the house of correction, and be there delivered of a basa tard, 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 sale castody. 2 Bulstrode, 358. Sess, Cus. 99.
So in the case of Elsing v. Hereford, Hil. 2 Geo. 1. a bastard was bors in the county gaol, and the court resolved that its set. tement was with the mother. 1 Sess. Cas. 99,
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
industry. “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 6 settled.”
So be 17 Geo. 2. c. 5, where any woman wandering and 7. Bastards born begging, shall be lelivered of a child in any parish or place to of a vagrant which she does not belong, and thereby becometh chargeable moiher. to the same, the church wardens 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 busturil, shall not be settled in the place where so born, nor be sent thither by a ragrant pass, but the settlement of such woman shall be deemed the settlement of such child. $. 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. bospital shall be situated; but every such child shall follow the pitals. mother's settlement*. $. 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 found shall by virtue thereof gain any settlement in the parish. Ting Huspital.
And is from the facts stated, it appears by a fair conclusion, Child of a se. that a child is a bastard, it shall be settled where born; for in cond marriage, the case of the K. 7. Lubbenham, Ea. 31 Geo. 3. two justices the first hus. removed Elizabeth Hutchins, the wife of Thomas Hutchins band living,
seilica where (who was then absent from her) and Hepziba her daughter, from porn. Lubbenham to Orendon. On appeal, the sessions quashed the order, and stated a case, whereby it appeared among other matters, that the pauper Elizabeth was married about seren. teen 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 baans to Thomas Ponton, settled at Lubbenham : at which place Hepziba was born during their cobabitation together, and there baptized as the daughter of the said Thomas Ponton, and Elizabeth his wife.- That afterwards Ilutchins 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 settlenient of the pauper Elizabeth continued where her first husband was set. tled, I am therefore of opinion that the order of sessions, as far as it respects the wife, should be quashed, but aflirmed as ta the child, because the fair conclusion from all the facts statud
• See the title LYING-IN HOSPITALS, in vol. iii. for the parlicular regulations contained in this act,
is, that she was a bastard.-.-Order of sessions quashed as to the
mother, but affirmed as to the child. 4 Term Rep. 251, Bastard born 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. ficate
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 Nero 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 set. tlement 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, i 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 grant. ed the certificate. i Sirange, 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 Ililton; 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 con. tended, that partus sequitur ventrem, and that the certificate act made no difference between legitimate and illegitimate chil. dren.-Lee, Ch. J. This case scems 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, jodeed, a certificated persen, as also bus 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 bas. tards 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 Hippesholme 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 pa. rish 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 be. ing 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 mat. ter 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 jus. tices, adjudging the settlement to be at Hipperholm, where the pauper was borni, 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 boro : for in the case of the K. v. Ipsley, Mic. Ter. 10 Geo. 3.-A woman was certi. ficated from Studley to Ipsley in the following words : To the
churchwardens and overscers of the poor of the parish of Ips"ley: 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 church wardens and over. seers of the poor of our said parish of Studley do hereby promise for ourselvcs 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, au embrio. An unborn child cannot be personally certificated. It is no part of the parent's family. And ihe 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 la. mily.---- But tue Court were clearly of opinion, that the pa. rish of Studley was bound by this certificate, which takes no. tice 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 pro. vide for the infant she then went with; therefore they ought to be bound by their certificate. An infant in dentre sa mere may be, to a variety of purposes, considered as born. Bur. row's Sett. Cas. 650.
So in the case of the K. v. Tostock, Phil. 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 Islehan, 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, Elzabeth, 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.