persons as churchwardens, and distinct persons as overseers of the poor according to 43 Eliz. c. 2. By 54 Geo.III. c.107. s.1. all certificates of the settlements 54G.3. c. 107. of poor persons heretofore signed and executed, or which 6.1. shall hereafter be signed by a person or persons who, at the time of his or their signing and executing such certificate, acted as churchwarden or churchwardens, chapelwarden or chapelwardens, of the township, hamlet, or chapelry, granting such certificate, shall be taken to be as valid, and effectual, as if the same had been signed and executed by a person or persons actually sworn into the office of churchwarden or chapelwarden of such township, hamlet, or chapelry: Provided always, that such person or persons shall have been duly sworn into the office of churchwarden of the parish wherein the township, hamlet, or chapelry, granting such certificate, is contained, or into the office of churchwarden or chapelwarden of such township, hamlet, or chapelry. Sect. 2. All certificates of the settlements of poor persons, heretofore or hereafter signed and executed by the overseers of any township, hamlet, chapelry, or place, and the churchwarden or churchwardens, chapelwarden or chapelwardens, acting for, or appointed in respect of such township, hamlet, chapelry, or place, or the major part of them, shall be as good, valid, and effectual, as if the said certificates had been signed and executed by such overseers and the churchwardens of the parish wherein such township, hamlet, chapelry, or place, is situate, or the major part of them. Sect. 2. By 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 32. all parish indentures and certi- 1 & 2 Geo. IV. ficates signed before 28th May, 1821, by one church or chapelwarden acting or purporting to act in that capacity for any parish, &c. in England, for which two had been formerly appointed, shall be as effectual as if executed by one or more legally appointed. 2nd, The 8 & 9W.III. seems to require that a certificate In a township must be signed granted by a township, maintaining its own poor, and not by two over seers. If one having churchwardens, should be signed by all the overonly appointNo express decision has occurred on this subject, ed, and signed seers. by him, it is but it was determined, that it must be made by two overvoid. seers at least; for the appointment of one overseer only, is bad in law, by 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. (1); and if but one is appointed, a certificate signed and sealed by him is void. (2) Quære, whether parish churchward ens must sign a township certificate. Name of office stated. Justices have discretion to A further question arose in the preceding case, whether where a township situate within a parish has no churchwardens of its own, and maintains its poor separately, the churchwardens of the parish at large ought to join with the overseers of the township in granting certificates? The court did not decide the point; but two (3) of the three judges present intimated as the inclination of their opinion, that it was unusual, might be inconvenient, and seemed unnecessary for them to do so. (4) The certificate should give to those who sign it, the addition of churchwardens or overseers, according to their official situation in the parish. Yet if the officers of a hamlet, situate within a parish, and maintaining its own poor, describe themselves as officers of the parish at large, and acknowledge the persons mentioned to be legally settled within the parish, it is not such a defect as vitiates the instrument, but may be explained by parol evidence of the fact. (5) The justices have a discretionary power to refuse or refuse or allow allow a certificate; but unless they allow it by regularly certificate. filling up the blanks, and signing their names, it is not Form of attest- within the act, and cannot conclude the parish. (6) And ation. (1) Ante, Vol. I. 47. (2) Rex v. Clifton, 2 East, 168. It seems as if the point might have been made in Rex v. Samborn, 3 Term Rep. 609., but it was not. (3) Lawrence and Le Blanc Js. (4) Rex v. Clifton, supra (2). But see 2 & 3 Ann. c. 6. s.3. by which this is cured, as also 17 Geo.II. c. 38. s. 15. (5) Rex v. Samborn, 3 Term Rep. 609. (6) Rex v. Wooton St. Lawrence, Burr. S.C. 581. Str. 94. Rex v. Boston, if the justices appear to sign only as witnesses, without c. 29. A certificate was attested by A. B. a marksman, and Attestation P. I. The justices' certificate and allowance was as fol- under 3 Geo.II. lows: We, &c. do herby certify, that he the said P. I. came before us, this day, and made oath that he was present with the other witness above mentioned, and did see the said churchwardens and overseers severally sign and seal the said certificate; and that his name is of his own proper hand-writing. And we do allow of the certificate above written. It was argued that this certificate was insufficient; for 3 Geo. II. c. 29. s. 8. requires, that the attesting witnesses, or one of them, shall make oath before the justices who allow it, "that such witness or witnesses did see the execution of it; and that the names of such witnesses attesting the certificate are of their own proper hand-writing." Whereas here, the name or mark of A. B. was not proved to be his own hand-writing, for P. I. only proves, that his own name is of his own hand-writing. But the whole court were extremely clear, that there was sufficient proof of A. B.'s attestation. P. I. swears, "that he was present with B. and did see the churchwardens and overseers severally sign and seal the said certificate." And this is above thirty years ago. (3) It would be very unreasonable, that the parish, who gave the certificate so long ago, should quibble it off in this . (4) manner now. It seems that 3 Geo. II. c. 29. was only passed for the purpose of facilitating the proving certificates, and was (1) Rex v. Boston, ante, 170. (2). (2) Ibid. (3) See Rex v. Farringdon, post, 172. (1). 3 Geo.II.c.29. passed, to facilitate proof of certificates, and does not not intended to take away any mode of proof which take away any existed prior to the statute. (1) A certificate therefore previous mode of proving, nor under 8 & 9 W. III. is good, for that act certainly is not repeal the form repealed by 3 Geo. II. (2) under 8 & 9 W. III. Insufficient allowance under 3 Geo. II. c. 29. Thus, a certificate more than thirty years old, regularly allowed and signed by two justices, according to 8 & 9 W. III. was held valid, without further evidence, although it did not certify the affidavit of the witnesses, in the form prescribed by 3 Geo. II. c. 29, because a certificate of that age proved itself. (3) But where a certificate of attestation is relied upon as proof of the original certificate, the forms required by 3 Geo. II. c. 29. must be strictly followed. The certificate in the preceding case was stated in the margin to be "allowed by us, being first proved to be duly executed as the statute in that case directs and appoints." It was signed by two justices, but this allowance did not in any other manner certify an affidavit made by one of the witnesses according to 3 Geo. II. c. 29. On the other leaf of the same sheet of paper was a writing purporting to be made by the same two justices, but not signed by them, certifying that such an affidavit was made. Two judges doubted whether the requisites of 3 Geo. II. c. 29. had been sufficiently complied with. (4) But the remaining judge (5) thought, that every thing (as in the case of the justice's order) should be intended in favour of the attestation, and as the magistrates had stated, "that it was proved to be duly executed, it must be supposed to be so; because if the formalities required by the act were not complied with, the certificate would be false." (1) Per Ashhurst J., Rex v. Farringdon, 2 Term Rep. 466. (3) Rex v. Farringdon, ante, 155. (3). (4) Ashhurst and Grose Js. (5) Buller J. A certificate is not a transferrable instrument from one Direction of certificate. parish to another (1), and some particular parish must be in contemplation at the time of granting it. (2) But it need not be directed to any particular parish (3), for it takes effect only by delivery (4), and a mistake in the direction does not vitiate it. (5) It is said to be conclusive evidence of the pauper's settlement in the parish by which it is granted up to the time of granting it, although not actually delivered until after the party's removal from the place where he came to reside under it. (6) The 8 & 9 W. III. requires, that it be delivered to the Delivery. parish officers of the certificated parish, in order to prevent the party's removal from thence, or his acquiring a settlement there. (7) PART II. SECT. III. To whom a Certificate extends. A CERTIFICATE extends to three classes of persons. To whom it, 1st, Those actually named in it; 2d, Those who are part extends. of the person's family at the time it is granted; 3d, Those (1) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Wymondham, infra, (3). (2) Eod. Jud. Rex v. Lubbenham, 4 Term Rep. 251. (3) Rex v. Lillington, 1 East, 488., where the direction was To the churchwardens, &c. of the parish of H., or any other parish in the city or county of Coventry." A dictum in Rex v. Wymondham, 6 Term Rep. 552., seems contra, but see it explained in the foregoing case; and the opinion of Chapple J. Rex v. St. Nicholas in Harwich, post, (5). (4) Rex v. Wensley, 5 Term Rep. 154. (5) Rex v. St. Nicholas in Harwich, Burr, S. C. 171. The direction was "To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Harwich, near Dover-court, &c." The session found that the proper name of the parish was "St. Nicholas in Harwich," and that there was no such parish as Harwich near Dover-court. (6) Rex v. Buckingham, Cald. 64. (7) Rex v. Wensley, ante, (4). |
