who become so while he continues to reside under it. (1) Family named. It extends therefore to all who are mentioned expressly, although they afterwards live away from their parent, and form the head of another family. (2) But unless where a person is thus described, it only includes such as live under the same roof with the pater familias, and form his fire-side (3), or in other words, constitute a part of his family or household. (4)

Extends to after-born

second wife.

It extends therefore to all his children, whether born children, and before or after the certificate is granted (5); to those by a second wife, taken while the pauper resides under the certificate, after the death of a first, who had removed into the parish and resided with him under it (6), as also to the second wife herself, married under such circumstances. (7)

Certificate

C.54.

Also when an unemancipated daughter was delivered of under 33G.III. a bastard child in the township of Idle, during her father's residence there, with a certificate acknowledging him to be a member of a friendly society established under 33 Geo.III. c. 54., the certificate was held to extend not only

(1) See the opinion of Grose J., Rex v. Storrington, 7 Term Rep. 133. (2) Rex v. Testerton, 5 Term Rep. 258. Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Darlington, 4 Term Rep. 797. Rex v. Bath Easton, 8 Term Rep. 446. But these determinations do not create any distinction between children named and those who are not so, while they continue part of the father's family residing under the certificate; and therefore the child's derivative settlement shall shift with the father's whether named or otherwise. See Rex v. Leek Wooton, 16 East, 118., and particularly the judgment of Le Blanc J. Ibid. 124. Also Rex v. Cold Ashton, Burr. S. C. 444. Rex v. Dedham. Ibid. 528. there relied on. As to the effect of a certificate on the settlement of illegitimate children, see ante, Vol. I.

(5) Per Lord Kenyon, Rex v. Darlington, supra, (2).

(4) Rex v. Mortlake, 6 East, 397.

(5) Rex v. Sherborne, Burr. S. C. 182. Rex v. Bray, Burr. S. C. 529. (6) Rex v. Sherborne, ante, (5).

(7) Rex v. Hampton, 5 Term Rep. 266. Buller J. dissent. upon the ground that the second wife was protected by the certificate, only as part of her husband's family, and that upon his death she was no longer a part of it. See post, 179. (1).

to her but to all the members of her family; and as the daughter at the time of her delivery resided in the township of I. under that act, the child's settlement followed that of its mother. (1)

clude a son.

But as it is competent to the parties to limit the extent Certificate of a certificate, it may be framed so as to exclude, as well framed to exas to include, a person who would otherwise be considered as protected by it. The pauper's father, having resided some years in S., was removed with his two younger children to P., and shortly after returned with a certificate from P. acknowledging him and his two younger children settled there. The pauper was neither included in this order of removal, nor certificate; the parish officers of S. having declared before the magistrates, previous to the removal to P., that as the pauper got his own living, they had nothing to do with him. The pauper was, at the time of granting the certificate, about fourteen years old, and after his father's return, supported himself by his daily labour, and lodged and boarded with his father at S. paying him five shillings a week. About two years after the father's return with the certificate to S. the pauper was hired and served in S. for a year, and was held to gain a settlement in the parish thereby, as not being included in the certificate. For though generally speaking, if a certificate be granted to the head of a family, it extends to all the members of that family; yet it is competent to the parties themselves to narrow the extent of a certificate; and that in' question seems to have been specially framed for the purpose of excluding the pauper from the operation of it. It is not conceived in general terms, but after mentioning the father and mother, it goes on to specify the younger children, omitting the pauper who was the eldest; and it is a known maxim, that expressio unius est exclusio alterius. It could not have concluded the parish granting the certificate as to his settlement, because it was intended to exclude him from the certificate at the time it was granted. It

(1) Rex v. Idle, 2 B. & A. 149.

Does not ex

tend to a son who becomes head of a family; nor to grand-children.

12 Ann. c. 18. s. 2.

follows therefore that he gained a settlement there by hiring and service. (1)

And although the certificate extends to a son as part of the father's family, without being named in it, yet where he himself becomes the head of a family, then the words of the statute, public policy, and the convenience of mankind, require, that he should no longer be considered as part of his father's family, or be protected by the certificate granted to the father. (2) Therefore, although a son lives with his father, yet if he marries and has children, a certificate does not extend to the grandchildren, either so as to render them irremovable, or prevent their acquiring a settlement (3), unless the son is expressly named in the certificate. (4)

The law respecting certificates is extended by 12 Anne, c. 18. s. 2. to apprentices and servants, whose masters reside under them. (5)

Residents un

irremovable,

PART II. SECT. IV.

Of the Effect of Certificates. (6)

PERSONS Who reside under a certificate cannot be re

der certificates moved until actually chargeable (7), although the certifitill chargeable. cate departs from the usual form, and promises to receive "the pauper and his family, when they shall be thereto requested;" for it must be taken to mean, when they shall be legally requested upon the party's becoming charge

(1) Rex v. Storrington, 7 Term Rep. 135.

(2) Per Lord Kenyon C.J. Rex v. Darlington, ante, 174. (2).

(5) Rex v. Darlington, supra, (2). Rex v. Heath, 5 Term Rep. 583. Rex v. Mortlake, 6 East, 367.

(4) Rex v. Bath Easton, 8 Term Rep. 446. But see Rex v. Leek. Wooton, 16 East, 118. ante, 174.

(6) As to its effect upon the settlement of those who are comprehended within it, see ante, part ii. sect. iii.

(7) Little Kire v. Woodsall, 2 Salk, 530.

able. (1) And if the certificate is destroyed by casualty, and the parish refuse to grant a new one, it does not render him removable previous to his being so. (2)

So also, as the certificate does not protect a person in his residence in a third parish (3), it cannot prevent him from acquiring a settlement there. Thus, a son born in the certificated parish, acquires a settlement either by hiring and service (4), or by apprenticeship (5) in a third.

Does not exparish. Son of certificated by service in a person settled third parish.

tend to a third

It has occurred to the court to determine the effect of 1. Apprentices certificates most frequently in the case of apprentices, but and servants themselves the principle applies equally to all parts of the certificated certificated. person's family. Apprentices and hired servants, who come into and reside in the parish under a certificate, are prevented, like all other persons, by 8 & 9 W.III. from acquiring a settlement. (6)

But the 12 Anne was meant to apply to the uncertificated apprentices and servants of certificated persons, who, previous to that statute, might acquire a settlement by serving there, in the same manner as any other inhabitant. The principle of the act is, "that the certificate-man shall not be an instrument of burthening the parish in which he resides under a certificate, with an apprentice (7)," or hired servant: but that the adventitious parts of his family may be excluded from settling there, as its natural members are by the act of William.

(1) Rex v. St. Mary, Westport. 3 Term Rep. 44.

(2) For the pauper's testimony is, under such circumstances, sufficient to establish the certificate. Rex v. Hayder, 2 Bott, 566. Pl. 580., without argument.

(3) Ante, 164. Also the opinion of Dennison J., Rex v. Sherborne, Burr. S. C. 182.

(4) Rex v. Horsley, Burr. S. C. 385.

(5) Rex v. Silton, Burr. S. C. 269. Rex v. Petham, 2 Str. 1197. A certificate man's apprentice, who was assigned to a parishioner of another parish, and served there.

(6) See Alton v. Elvetham, 2 Bott, 280. Pl. 281.

(7) Per Aston J., Romsey v. St. Michael, Burr. S. C, 640.

Apprentice of certificated

This statute varies from 8&9 W.III. c.30. in so far as it uses the words, "person coming to inhabit or reside," while the other has it, any person who "shall come into any parish there to inhabit and reside." Hence it was contended, that the words of the 12 Anne being in the disjunctive, includes the servants and apprentices of all persons who come into the parish under a certificate, although, in consequence of subsequent emancipation, or other circumstances, their residence in the parish is not protected by it. But the court were of opinion, upon comparing the words of the statute of Anne with the provisions of former acts (1), that the word or must receive a copulative construction, and that the statute meant only to designate persons who come into any parish for the purpose of residing, and actually reside there, under a certificate. Where therefore one J. D. and wife removed into the parish of Great Marlow under a certificate, and while he resided under it, his son W. D. was born there. W.D. afterwards left his father's family, married, and occupied a separate house in Great Marlow, where he had a son, T. D. This son, T. D., having been regularly bound, and serving as an apprentice to his father, was held to acquire a settlement thereby. For the father W. D. by becoming the head of a distinct independent family of his own, could no longer be considered as residing under the grandfather's certificate, and therefore was a person with whom an apprentice could gain a settlement. (2)

But wherever the master or mistress are protected in their residence by the certificate, either as the head or as a constituent part of a family, their apprentice or servant is prevented from acquiring a settlement in the parish by serving them in these capacities.

A man and his wife came to reside in H. under a certificate, where the wife died; the man married again and gains no settle- died, after which his second wife took an apprentice, who

man's widow,

ment.

(1) 8 & 9 W.III. c.30. 9 & 10 W.III. c.11.

(2) Rex v. Mortlake, 6 East, 397.