Sivut kuvina

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).

In these cases, the hiring and service in the certificating parish bad 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 51. 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 871., 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)

Settlement 5th, A certificate is discharged by acquiring a settlement in the certific in the parish to which it is granted. This, according to cated parish. 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)

May be gained by estate.

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.
(5) Ante, chap. xxii.
(4) Burcleer v. East Woodhay, 1 Str. 163.

the parish, if unincumbered with a certificate, and that whether he acquired the property by operation of law, or by his own act. (1) Thus, it may be gained by residence on a freehold (2), or leasehold interest, obtained by purchase (3), or descent (4); on a copyhold surrendered to a wife by her father (5), or devised to her by will (6), or by the widow's quarantine. (7)

It is determined also that a settlement acquired by the head of the family in the certificated parish, will be communicated to his unemancipated children whether they are named in the certificate or not. (8)

The 9 Geo. I. extends to estates purchased for a pecu- 9Geo.I. c.70 niary consideration by persons residing under a certificate so as to prevent the gaining a settlement, unless the purchase is bona fide of an estate of 30l. value. (9) It has been doubted whether one could be obtained since that act, by any estate acquired under a voluntary grant, without a money consideration. (10)

But it was afterwards held, that a conveyance from father to son was clearly no purchase within 9 Geo. I. c. 7., notwithstanding part of the consideration was 101. in money, and that the son's certificate was avoided by a residence of forty days after the grant of this estate. (11)

(1) Rex v. Cold Ashton, Burr. S.C. 444. ante, 82. (4). (2) Rex v. Deddington, Burr. S. C. 320.

(3) Rex v. Stansfield, Burr. S. C. 205. Rex v. Deddington, supra, (2); Ivinghoe o. Stonebridge, 1 Stra. 265.

(4) Rex v. Cold Ashton, supra,(1).

(5) Rex v. East Woodhay, ante, 186. (4). Rex v. Ingleton, Burr. S. C. 560.

(6) Rex v. Shenston, Burr. S. C. 468. Rex v. Woburn, Burr.S.C.785. (7) Rex v. Long Wittenham, Cald. 474.

(8) Rex v. Leek Wooton, 16 East, 118. and see Rex v. Hardwick, 11 East, 578.

Rex v. Cold Ashton, supra, (1). Rex v. Deddington, supra, (2).

(9) Rex v. Dunchurch, Burr. S. C. 553. ante, 81. (2).
(10) Rex v. Warblington, 1 Term Rep. 241.
(11) Rex v. Ufton, 3 Term Rep. 251. See also Rex v. Ingleton, supra,(5).

A certificate is likewise discharged by subsequent residence on an estate, conveyed to the pauper, previous to his being certificated (1), or by residence under similar circumstances, on a tenement of the annual value of 101. taken previously. For the statute which requires the taking of a tenement, does not say whether the taking shall be before or after the certificate is granted; and the principle it goes upon is the ability to take, which exists equally in either case. (2)

6. Certificate 6th, A certificate continues as to any person who is how discharged as to a per. expressly named therein, until discharged by some act son expressly immediately affecting himself; for he is to be considered in named.

the same situation as if the parish had granted a distinct certificate to him (3), and consequently his family reside under it, and are affected by it. (4)

But the settlement of an unemancipated child shifts into the certificated parish with that of the father, although it be named in the certificate.

The pauper's grandfather J. B. rented a tenement in M. being of the yearly value of 101. at 6l. a-year. His son M. B. came to reside with him in M., and about a month afterwards, the grandfather died, devising his interest in the tenement to his son M. B. and making him his executor, who continued therein many years, and paid the last rent due from the grandfather J. B. as his

About a year afterwards, and while in possession of the tenement, M. B. applied for and obtained a certificate from the parish of W. to that of M., in which the pauper, being then about twelve years old, was expressly named, and thereby acknowledged to be legally


(1) Rex v. Ufton, ante, 187, (11).

(2) Rex v. Findern, Cald. 426., where the pauper had taken the tenement one month prior to his obtaining the certificate. Rex v. Leek Wooton, 16 East, 118. post, 189. (3).

(3) Rex u. Testerton, 5 Term Rep. 258. Rex v. Keel, ante, 185. (1). (4) Rex v. Bath Easton, 8 Term Rep. 446.

settled in W. The court were of opinion that he followed his father's settlement acquired by residence on the tenement devised to him by the grandfather J. B.: “ For the legislature evidently meant [in 8 & 9 W.III. c.30. and 9 & 10 W.III. c.11.] that the certificate should be entire to protect the pater familias and the family whether named or not; and this naming of any of the family is a mere matter of convenience, the more easily to identify them, but is not directed to be done by the legislature, nor are any powers taken away from or given to such children on account of their being named or not named in the certificate. It is mere artificial reasoning which makes a distinction between such of the children as are and such as are not named in the certificate; a distinction which the act itself does not make.” (1) language of Lord Mansfield is founded in reason, and not opposed by the act, that the children of all parents must have the settlement of their father until they acquire another for themselves, and that therefore the pauper in this case continuing part of the father's family at the time, derived the settlement from him, and was not repelled from it by the circumstance of being named in the certificate.” (2) If such were not the true construction of the act, the inconvenience would follow, that however young the children might be coming with their father into the parish with a certificate naming them, if the father gained a new settlement there, he would be settled in one parish and the children in another. (3)

« The

(1) Verba Lord Ellenborough C. J. Yet quære whether the expressly naming persons in a certificate, who would otherwise be included under the general denomination of family, may not have been intended in many instances to save the trouble of granting other certificates, and extend its protection to such children after they cease to be part of their father's family, without affecting their condition while they continue members of it; as for instance, in case of the father's death, or the certificates being abandoned by him. See the opinion of Le Blanc J., 16 East, 124. Also, Rex v. Idle, 2 B. & A. 149.

(2) Eod. Jud. Ibid.
(3) Per Bayley J., Ibid. Rex v. Leek Wooton, 16 East, 118.

« EdellinenJatka »