« PreviousContinue »
RELATIVE TO THE
DUTY AND OFFICE
Justice of the Peace.
COMPRISING ALSO THE AUTHORITY OF
BY THOMAS WALTER WILLIAMS, ESQ.
OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER AT LAW.
CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED, INCLUDING THE STATUTES AND
ADJUDGED CASES TO THE PRESENT TIME.
IN FOUR VOLUMES.
HOOD, AND SHARPE; CUTHELL AND MARTIN; J. STOCKDALE;
1. Settlement of the poor. Of this very important subject it is proposed to treat in the following order :
I. Settlement by birth.
V. Settlement by marriage.
sidence, VII. Settlement by renting a tenement of 101.
a year. VOL. IV.
VIII. Settlement by paying public taxes.
X. Settlement by having an estate.
cannot be discovered.
1. The settlement by birth.
i. The settlement by birth of bastarde. Bastards settled
Illegitimate children must be kept by the parish in which where born.
they are born, for the place of the birth of a bastard child is the place of its settlement, ex necessitate ; being nullius filius. Bulstrode, 349. Carthew,433. 3 Salk. 166. 1 Lord Raym. 567.
But this settlement by birth may be defeated several ways. Exceptions to the rule.
First; it may be defeated if it be procured in any particular 1. Bastards
parish by fraud and contrivance; for where an unmarried serborn in a place vant girl, being with child and near the time of her delivery, by fraud and was conveyed, by practice, out of the parish into an out-house contrivance.
situated in the outermost confines of the adjoining parish, and the child was there born; the question being, which of these two parishes was to keep the child ? It was held, that though illegitimate children must be kept by the parish in which they are born; yet if any improper practice appears, then this rule doth fail, and the child shall be kept and provided for by the parish where the mother did dwell, and where she was goi with child, and which had used the practice to have the child born in another parish. Tewkesbury v. Twining, Bulstrode 349.
So in Masters v. Child, Hil. 10 Wil. 3. it was ruled, tha if a woman, big with child of a bastard, and settled in one pa rish, is persuaded by the parish officers to go into another pa rish on purpose to be there delivered, this fraud will make th parish chargeable where the mother was settled, though th child was not born there. But if a woman with child of bastard come accidentally into one parish, and is persuaded some of the parishioners to go into another parish and there delivered, tbis shall not charge that parish which persuaded he 3. Salk. 66. So also if a woman with child be removed to a place, ai
there delivered of a bastard child, pending an appeal against 2. Bastards the order of removal ; such child is not settled where born, born atier robut in the parish from which the mother was removed, if the moval, and
pending an apo order of removal is quashed. This appears from the case of peal. Muck-Waltham y. Peram, Mic. 8 Wil. 3. The mther of a bastant child was a little time before her delivery removed by order of two justices from Much-Waltham to Peram ; and be. fore the next sessions was delivered at Peran of a bastard child. At the sessions Peram appealed, and the sessions art judged the woman to be legally settled at Much-Waltham, and ordered her to be sent back thither. After this, an order was made for settling the child at Peram, and it was moved to quash this order; because, though regularly bastards must be maintained where born, yet where there is a contrivance that it shall be so, as seems in this case it is otherwise ; and there. SOCter an order is reversed, all things happening subsequent Thereuato shall be avoided thereby; and this child being born pending the order ought to be esteemed in law to be born in that parish whereunto the mother, on the appeal, is retarned back,-THE COURT seemed to agree to this; and a rulo was made to shew cause, but none was shewed*. 2 Salk. 471.
So in the case of Il'estbury v. Coston, Hil. 2 Ann.-A woman big with child was removed from Westbury to Coston, and pending the order before the next sessions, was delivered oi a bastard cbild. Coston appealed, and the order of the two justices was reversed; but by another order of two justices the child was sent back to Corlon, as the place of its birth. On an appeal against this order it was confirmed. But the pro. ceedings being removed into the King's Bench; BY THE COURT, Although there is no fraud, yet the removal was wrongful, and the subsequent reversal of the order makes all void ab initio. Fraud or pot írand is not material in this case; but the settle. ment of the child depends upon the removal, for if that was wrong, they shall not ease themselves by it. 2 Salk. 532.
So also a bastard born on the road while the mother is 3. Bastards passing under an order of removal, is not settled where born ;
is not settled chor han born while he for it was resolved by the court in the case of the Q. v. Jane moving, Grey, Ea. 10 Ann, that if the parish officers are carrying a pregnant woman from one place to another by virtue of an or. der of removal, and she is delivered on the road, in transitu,
er is re.
• Besides, the parish officers could not remove the woman until the appeal was determined ; so that they had no remedy to prevent the birth of the child in their parish-- See the case of Bereham v. Wala them, reported as of Hil. Ter, 8 Will. 3. in Carth. Rep. 397. in all probability the same case as that reported in Salkeld as above, under the name of Much- altham v. Peram.