« EdellinenJatka »
A parish may acknowledge a pauper to be settled with them in three ways. Ist, By relief. 2d, By certificate. 3d, By neglecting to appeal against an order of removal.
Of acknowledging a Settlement by Relief.
The bare fact of a pauper's having been relieved in a Mere relief particular instance, is no proof of his being settled where no evidence of he was relieved. He might be relieved as casual poor; and if in want of relief while in the parish, the parish officers were bound to give it, whether settled there or elsewhere. (1)
The pauper, who was a widow, proved, that a considerable time after their marriage, her late husband went to live in Chatham parish, away from his wife (2), and exercised the trade of a cordwainer there. She did not know whether he acquired a settlement in C. or elsewhere, but knew that he received relief from C. more than once, being at one time a fortnight, and at another for a longer period, in the parish workhouse, from illness; that he died in the workhouse, and was buried at the parish expence; but that, during all the time he was so relieved, he resided in Chatham. The Court of K. B. were of opinion, that this was not sufficient evidence to prove the husband settled in C.
question made in the case was, whether being treated as a parishioner amounted to constructive notice so as to entitle a pauper to a settlement by residence under 1 Jac. I. c. 17.; and as J. G. was alive and examined, these facts could not be considered as direct evidence of his having gained a settlement by any other means, to prove which, he was not directly examined.
(1) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Chadderton, 2 East, 27. The relief was applied for and obtained when the pauper buried his wife. (2) She resided in the same parish. See 8 East, 449. n. (a).
Lord Ellenborough C. J. On subjects of this sort it is important that there should be one uniform rule, as far as is consistent with law; and the rule having been laid down by Lord Kenyon, in the King v. Chadderton, that the bare fact of giving relief to a pauper within the parish was no evidence of his settlement there, because it might be given to him as casual poor, it is proper to abide by it. In that case indeed the relief was only administered once; and it seems necessary to consider, whether its having been administered more than once, or several times, alters the case, and differs this in substance from the other ; for each instance in itself might not be evidence of the settlement, and yet it might be difficult to say that several instances might not furnish the conclusion. At the same time, however, it is to be observed, that though the relief were given for any length of time, the inference may be, either that the party receiving it was a settled inhabitant, or that his settlement could not be known. But that would bring it to an alternative case, on which the sessions might draw their own conclusion, and the difficulty would still exist. Upon the whole, therefore, it appears to me as the better rule to adopt, that it does not amount to evidence of the settlement, and there would be great impolicy in admitting it to have any weight; for if the parish officers, by giving relief to a pauper, were to be making evidence against themselves, as to his settlement in their parish, it would make them perform their duty to casual poor with great reluctance; and therefore it is more consonant to humanity and policy, and to the rule of law laid down by Lord Kenyon, to say at once that it is no evidence of the settlement, than to leave it as a matter of inference in each case. The order of removal founded upon this evidence, and an order of sessions confirming it, were therefore quashed. (1)
Otherwise where given not as casual poor.
But where a parish relieves under circumstances which exclude the supposition of its being given to the party as casual power, it is evidence that he is settled there.
(1) Rex o. Chatham, 8 East, 498.
The pauper's husband, thirty-eight years old, was born Relief in a fo
reign parish. and always lived in A., but W. a township maintaining its own poor, had, at various times, during forty years past, relieved the father of the pauper, and different members of his family, while they resided in another township, by taking some into the workhouse, relieving some in other ways, providing coffins, and defraying the expence of the funerals of others. This was held sufficient evidence of the pauper's husband's father being settled in W. For per Lord Ellenborough C. J. The relief was given by the township of W. to the father of the pauper's husband, and to the different members of his family; and this, while they were residing in another township. This was evidence of the father of the pauper's husband's settlement in W. at that time; and this is stated to have been done at different times during the last forty years ; the particular periods are not material ; for no other settlement has been established since. And all things are presumed to continue in the same state, unless something be shewn to the contrary. Then, the only evidence set up against this is, that of the birth of the pauper's husband in A., which is no more than primâ facie evidence of settlement there. And, as contrasted with the evidence on the other side, is the weakest evidence of settlement. (1)
The pauper's grandfather came into S. with a certificate from 0., in 1727. On appeal against a removal to S. no evidence was given of the pauper, his father, or grandfather, having gained a settlement in any other place since the date of the certificate ; but it was proved that the pauper and his family had been relieved by S. when residing in the several townships of L. and W. The court were of opinion that there was nothing to rebut the presumption of a settlement in S. from the repeated acts of relief, while the pauper and his family were residing out of the township; and there was no reason why S. should have relieved the
(1) Rex. v. Wakefield, 5 East, 335. and see Vol. I.
pauper while residing in other parishes, if the officers had not known that he was settled with them. (1)
Relief only prima facie evidence of settlement.
It appears from these cases, that relief is only prima facie evidence of settlement; as it amounts to no more than shewing the opinion of the parish that the pauper was settled with them (2); the parish may rebut it, therefore, by proving that the person so relieved was settled at that time in some other place.
An estate in M. was conveyed to the pauper by his father, in consideration of natural love and affection, and 101., and he resided upon it. He afterwards received a certificate from U., and was occasionally relieved by that parish during his residence at M. This certificate was considered as conclusive upon U. as to his settlement only up to the period when it was granted; and it was not even made a point, that the subsequent relief carried it further down, so as to defeat the settlement which the pauper would otherwise acquire by residence on his estate at
Of acknowledging a Settlement by Certificate.
Effect of certificate.
The operation of a certificate, in protecting parties from being removed, will be shown in another place. The object at present, is to consider its effect upon the settlement of those persons to whom it refers.
“ A certificate is a most solemn acknowledgment by the parish who gave it, that the parties who are the subject of it are their legally settled inhabitants; it is a sort of adjudication that they are so; and when the persons certificated,
(1) Rex v. Stanley cum Wrenthorpe, 15 East, 350.
or their children, become actually chargeable, the parish who gave the certificate is bound to receive them.” (1)
It concludes the parish which gave it from controverting An estoppel. any
fact which is there set forth, as against the parish to whom it is given. (2)
The parish cannot therefore dispute the marriage of !: As to parpersons whom it has thereby acknowledged to be man and ties' marriage. wife. (3) They admit it legal in all its consequences, and are bound to maintain the subsequent issue of the parties, as if one had really taken place. (4)
It may also bind a parish to admit the legitimacy of a 2. Legitimacy spurious child, born previously; and although the certifi- of a bastard. cate is obtained by the desire of that parish where the party was then resident, and where the child was born, it is equally conclusive, provided the latter is not guilty of fraud, and has not misled the parish, granting it by false If no fraud. information respecting the child's legitimacy. (5)
A certificate also granted, previous to the woman's deli- Certificate very, will, if properly expressed, bind a parish to receive, previous to the
bastard's birth and provide for, a child which is afterwards born illegitimate in the parish to which the undertaking is given (6); and by such acknowledgment, that he is an inhabitant, his family may derive settlements through him in the same manner, as that of any other person lawfully settled in the parish. (7)
(1) Per Lee C. J., Rex v. Headcorn, Burr. S. C. 253.
(2) All Saints v. St. Giles, 2 Salk. 530. Rex v. Lubbenham, 4 Term Rep. 281. Rex v. St. Martin at Oak, 16 East, 303.
(3) Rex v. Headcorn, supra, (1), and see Vol. I.
(5) Rex v. Tostock, Burr. S.C. 737. Though the justices should not have found fraud; yet, if the pauper, to whom the certificate was granted, desired the son to be included in it, the court would have understood it to be fraud. Per Lord Mansfield, ibid. Yet see Rex v. Lubbenham, post, 140. (4)
(6) Rex v. Ipsley, Burr. S. C. 650. and see Vol. I.
(7) Ib. and see the distinction between this case and Rex v. Thwaites, post.