Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

the certificate was given (1), if there is no appeal against the order.

2d, By granting a new certificate to another parish. (2)

3d, By the pauper's voluntary deserting the certificate by removing from the parish to which it was granted, and taking up his residence either in the certifying parish, or elsewhere, without an intention to return thither.

This principle is stated so clearly by Lord Kenyon C.J. as to reduce the point to a mere question of fact, to be decided by the justices upon proof of the party's intention.

In 1754, the pauper's father went to reside in St. Michael's, under a certificate, and continued there until 1757, when he returned to the certifying parish with his family, where the pauper was born. In two years he returned with his family to St. Michael's, and after residing there eight years, went back with them to the certifying parish. Three years afterwards he returned again to St. Michael's, where the pauper was bound apprentice to him, and having dwelt there with his family six years, he resided for another year in different parishes, and then went back with his family to St. Michael's, where the pauper resided under his indentures for a year.

Lord Kenyon C. J. "It was at length settled in Rex v. Newington (3), that a voluntary removal from the certified parish (not indeed for a temporary purpose only, but where, as Lord Mansfield said, the residence there is permanently at an end,') will put an end to the certificate. A mere temporary removal I understand to be, where the person goes from the certificated parish, to make a visit

(1) Rex v. Ealing, Cald. 472.

(2) Per Lord Mansfield, Rex v, Birdham, Cald. 500. Rex v. St. Peter's in Derby, 1 Term Rep. 218. S. P.

(3) Post, 184. (3).

elsewhere, or on occasional business, leaving his family behind him in that parish, as being the place of his domicile. (1) But in this case, the pauper's father went, taking all his family with him, to the certificating parish, where he took a house, and resided for two years; he afterwards went back to the certificated parish, and again returned to the parish by which the certificate was granted, where he continued

(1) T.M. went, in 1736, to reside in All Saints under a certificate from Darlington. While he resided there, his son Thomas was born, who, after having been hired and served for a year in a third parish, returned to All Saints, where he married, and lived until his death. His son the pauper, was born there, who, when of the age of 14, hired himself to live with B. in All Saints for three years. The grandfather T. M. returned to Darlington with his wife some time before the pauper's service with B., leaving his son Thomas with his family, among whom was the pauper, behind him, and both T. M. and his wife died at Darlington. Lord Kenyon C. J. "In this case, two questions are made, 1st, whether, by the grandfather's return to Darlington, there was an end of the certificate? I am strongly inclined to think it was not an abandonment. If all the family had indeed been removed back, that would have been an abandonment; but as his son was left behind, it was a sort of pledge, that the certificate was not intended to be abandoned. It is not necessary, however, to determine upon that point, because, on the other question, I am prepared to give a decisive opinion." But Mr. J. Buller thought, "that the certificate was at an end by the grandfather's return; it was originally granted to him. The man to whom the certificate was granted, is the person whom the legislature had in view; and being granted to him according to the statute, it rightly includes his family; but his family are" those only who live with him." And as it happens in the course of time, that some of the children separate from the father, if the father himself return to the parish granting the certificate, I think that the certificate is at an end as to all of them." Rex v. Darlington, 4 Term Rep. 797. In this case the son had ceased to be part of his father's family, having married and become the head of a distinct one. He had also gained a settlement in a third parish by hiring and service.

A certificate to K. was granted to a father who died there, after which his son, who was named in the certificate, continued to reside in K. But his daughter, when seven years old, returned to the certifying parish, where she dwelt for eleven years, the last three or four of which were passed in service, she twice went back to her brother at K. The certificate was held not to be abandoned as to her. Lord Mansfield being at first of opinion that it was. Rex v. Keel, post, 185. In Rex v. Heath, 5 Term Rep. 583., Lord Kenyon intimates that "Lord Mansfield's first thoughts were best." See post, 184. (3).

4. Gaining a new settle

ment.

three years more, making the last parish the place of his permanent residence. On the ground therefore that he left the parish of St. Michael's (the certificated parish) not for a temporary purpose only, but with a view of making the certificating parish the place of his permanent residence, and not being able to distinguish this case from that of Rex v. Newington, which I wish to adopt in its fullest extent, I am of opinion, that the certificate granted to the pauper's father was discharged.” (1)

It had been previously decided, that a certificate was discharged, where the object of it had returned with his family to the certifying parish, and remained there eighteen years, he then went back to the certificated parish, to take possession of the effects of a deceased relation, and died there in six months (2); as it was also where one removed with his whole family into a third parish, and having remained two years, went from thence with his whole family into a fourth, in which he dwelt four years, and died. For in these cases the paupers having left the certificated parish without any intention of returning, their certificates were discharged. (3)

4th, A certificate is discharged by the party's gaining a settlement in another parish (4), although it is consolidated for the maintenance of the poor with the certificated parish. (5)

It seems, however, that this rule does not extend to acts

(1) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. St. Michael's in Coventry, 5 Term Rep. 526.

(2) Rex v. Frampton upon Severn, Doug. 417.

(3) Rex v. Newington, 1 Term Rep. 354. Also Rex v. Taunton St. Mary Magdalen, Burr. S. C. 402., where the pauper returned with his whole family to the certifying parish, and died there without going back to the parish which received him under the certificate. Rex v. Keel, Cald. 144., seems in some degree to contradict the authority of what is here laid down. But see the opinion of Lord Kenyon C. J. upon that case, Rex v. Heath, 5 Term Rep. 583.

(4) Rex v. Great Torrington, Burr. S C. 428. Rex v. Keynsham Ib. 429. Harrison v. Lewis, 3 Salk. 253.

(5) Rex v. Wymondham, 6 Term Rep. 552.

of settlement done by minors in the parish granting the certificate. They return to the certificated parish under the certificate, if the head of the family has continued to reside there under its protection.

The pauper was born in B. where her father and mother resided under a certificate from K. After her parents' death, she lived until seven years old in B. with her brother, who was named in the certificate. She then went voluntarily to K. where she was maintained by the parish until fourteen, when she hired herself, and served two or three years in K.; after which she returned voluntarily to her brother's house at B., and was afterwards hired and served for a year in that parish. The court were of opinion, that she had not thereby acquired a settlement in B. She returned voluntarily to the house in which she had before resided with her brother, who continued to live there during the whole time she was absent. The certificate was not discharged as to him, and the circumstances do not warrant the court in saying that it was so as to her. (1)

In this case the pauper appears to have returned to the certified parish, and to have been hired and served there whilst under age. In a later one the pauper's father went to reside in J. under a certificate from E., and the pauper, as part of his family, with him. The pauper, when sixteen years old, served three years in E. under yearly contracts, after which he returned to his father at J. where he still resided under the certificate, and, in about a month, hired himself to a parishioner in J. for a year, which he served. The court were of opinion that the father, residing under the certificate, his son gained no settlement in J. but was settled in E. (2)

(1) Rex v. Keel, Cald. 144. See Rex v. Morley, 2 M. & S. 417. post, 190. (3).

(2) Rex v. Ingworth, 8 Term Rep. 339. Lord Ellenborough observes on this case, that the pauper must have been of age on the commencement of the second year's service under the last letting; but the cir cumstances seem to have escaped the notice both of the counsel and the court. Rex v. Morley, supra, (1).

Settlement how acquired in the certificated parish.

May be gained by estate.

In these cases, the hiring and service in the certificating parish had no operation. It conferred no new settlement, the pauper being settled there at the time.

Upon the same principle it has been decided that an unemancipated child follows a settlement acquired by his father, after his binding and service as an apprentice with a certificated master.

The pauper's father being settled at F., came to reside at H. upon a tenement of the annual rent of 5l. 10s. and the pauper, at the age of fifteen, was apprenticed to S., who resided in B. under a certificate from N., with whom he regularly served his time. During the first year of his apprenticeship, the father purchased this tenement for 877., and the pauper was clothed by his father, and occasionally visited him during the apprenticeship, at the expiration of which, being nineteen, he returned to his father's house in H., and receiving some new clothes, went back to his master, and worked with him by the piece for a year and a quarter. The court were of opinion that the son must be considered as having been re-incorporated in his father's family, having returned and required and received his father's assistance, and therefore he followed his father's settlement in H. (1)

5th, A certificate is discharged by acquiring a settlement in the parish to which it is granted. This, according to the words of 8,9,& 10 W.III. c.11. is to be gained only in one of two ways. 1st, Serving an office. (2) 2nd, Renting a tenement of 10l. a-year. (3)

But it has been likewise held, by a very reasonable construction of this act, that one may become settled by residence on his own estate (4), or in the parish where it lies, in all cases where he could acquire a settlement in

(1) Rex v. Hardwick, 11 East, 578.

(2) See ante, chap. xxii.

(3) Ante, chap. xxiii.

(4) Burcleer v. East Woodhay, 1 Str. 163.

« EdellinenJatka »