Sivut kuvina

3 Geo. II. c. 29.


Of reimbursing the certificated Parish.

As persons coming into a parish with a certificate are enabled to reside there without being removed until actually chargeable, it was reasonable that the parish thus compelled to receive the probable poor of other places, should be exonerated from the burthens incident to such residence as soon as they became unable to support themselves. This has been provided for by 3 Geo.II. c.29. s.9., which enacts that "When any overseer or other person shall remove back any person or their families, residing under a certificate, and becoming chargeable to the parish or place to which they shall belong; such overseers or other person shall be reimbursed such reasonable charges as they may have been put unto in maintaining and removing such persons, by the churchwardens or overseers of the place to which such persons are removed; the said charges being first ascertained and allowed by one or more justices for the county or place to which such removal shall be made; which said charges so ascertained and allowed shall in case of a refusal of payment, be levied by distress and sale of the goods of the churchwardens and overseers of the place to which such certificate person is removed by warrant of such justice or justices."


Of proving a Certificate. (1)

ON a question of settlement, when the respondents produced a certificate more than thirty years old, purporting to be granted to their parish by the appellant parish, the

(1) See ante, part ii. sect.ii. p. 171. as to the operation of 3 Geo.II. c. 29., &c. Also as to the signing of certificates in addition to the cases, ibid. 165, et seq. 1 & 2 Geo.IV. c.32. and Rex v. Catesby, the cases respecting the signing parish's indentures, ante, Vol. I. chap.xxi. s.2.

mere production of it was held to be sufficient, and the respondents were not obliged to show that the certificate had been kept in the parish chest (1); and it would be sufficient, if the certificate were produced by a rated inhabitant who was overseer of the township producing it (2), and even an interested corporator may produce the corporation muniments of which he is the depositary; and if the party objecting wished to inquire as to the custody, he might. (3)


But when the respondent parish D., in order to prove the Entry in parish fact of a certificate being delivered to D., after proving that no such certificate could be found in the custody of D., produced a book from the parish chest. On the outside of the cover was "Certificates received. Bonds ditto. Copies of Orders 1756." This book contained memorandums of orders of removal, of bonds and certificates received. The certificates were regularly numbered, and under the title Certificate was the following entry, dated 1771: No. 88. J. P. from Kenton; No. 89. J. D. (4) from ditto. There were a variety of other certificates subsequently entered. The Court were of opinion, that this book was properly rejected by the sessions, as inadmissible in evidence. For it is an established principle, that nothing said or done by a person having at the time an interest in the subject matter, shall be evidence, either for him or persons claiming under him. Now the entry in this book is of that description; for it is made by a person having an interest to make it, inasmuch as it is produced as proof of the delivery of a certificate, by which the parish of which the party making the entry is an inhabitant, is to be relieved from the burthen of maintaining the individual named in the certificate. (5)

(1) Rex v. Ryton, 5 Term Rep. 289. 1 Phillips on Evid. 6 edit. 464. (2) Rex v. Netherthong, 2M.& S. 337.

(3) Per Lord Ellenborough, ibid., citing the opinion of Lord Kenyon C. J. (4) The pauper's father.

(5) Rex v. Debenham, 2 B. & A. 185. There being other circumstances in the case from which the sessions might draw the conclusion that the certificate was in fact delivered, it was sent back to be reheard on that point.



Of 35 Geo.III. c.101.

35 Geo.III.

c.101. con



general regulations introduced by 8 & and 9&10 W. III. c. 3. respecting certi

9 W.III. c. 31.

sons actually ficated persons, the legislature extended the privilege of irremovability to various trades, callings, and descriptions of persons by partial statutes. But it is unnecessary to notice these particular enactments. (1) For although these acts are not repealed (2), the general law 35 Geo. III. c.101. (3), has rendered all persons irremovable until they become actually chargeable to the Except, 1. Per- parish or place which they inhabit (4), except, 1st, persons convicted of larceny or other felony; 2d, rogues, vagabonds, idle or disorderly persons, and such as shall appear upon the oath of one or more credible witness to

sons convict of


2. Rogues and vagabonds.

(1) Mariners and soldiers exercising a trade, 3 Geo. III. c. 8. 22 Geo. III. c. 44. 42 Geo. III. c. 69. 56 Geo.III. c. 57. Gate-keepers or persons renting turnpike tolls, and residing in the toll-house, 15 Geo.III. c. 84. s. 56. Officers, mariners, soldiers, and marines, serving since 1763, and their wives and children, 24 Geo. III. c.3. Officers and soldiers in the militia, drawn by ballot, or any of the fencible regiments, 24 Geo.III. c. 6. s. 4. Married militia-men serving, when drawn out into actual service, 26 Geo.III. c. 107. s. 131. Their wives and families, 43 Geo. III. c. 47. s. 8. Certificated members of benefit societies, 33 Geo.III. c.54. s. 17. Rex v. Idle, 2 B. & A. 149. It has been decided, that 22 Geo. III. c. 44. and 26 Geo.III. c.107., were made in pari materia, and extend only to such mariners, soldiers, and married militia-men, as are traders, and not to husbandmen. Rex v. Gwenop, 3 Term Rep. 133. 2 Bott, 542. Pl. 544. Persons having served apprenticeship to the trade of a woolcomber, or otherwise entitled to exercise it, may set up that or any other trade for which they are able, without being removable, 35 Geo.III. c.124. In order to prevent the settlement of an apprentice bound to a master residing under a certificate from a friendly society by 33 Geo.III. c.54. it is not enough for the certificated parish merely to produce the certificate upon hearing the appeal against an order removing the apprentice there; but they must likewise show that such certificate had been delivered to the parish officers as mentioned in sect. xvii. of the act before the service of the apprentice, Rex v. Egremont, 14 East, 258. (2) Rex v. Idle, 2 B. & A. 149.

(5) See Vol. III.

(4) Sect. 1.

be persons of evil fame, or reputed thieves, and not able to give a satisfactory account of themselves and their way

of living (1); 3d, unmarried women with child shall be 3. Pregnant taken, and deemed actually chargeable, &c. (2)

unmarried women.


No case has occurred which defines the import of the Meaning of terms "becoming actually chargeable," as used in the chargeable," first section of this act. But the phrase seems to retain in 35 Geo.III. the meaning it had previously acquired in settlement-law, c.101. viz. becoming a burthen to the parish by the actual receipt of relief.

9 & 10 W.III.

c 11. made

The statute was designed to give a more general effect Same as in to those provisions in 9&10 W.III. c.11., which enabled poor persons to quit their places of settlement for pari materia. the purpose of a livelihood, and, at the same time, to remove the inconveniences which arose from granting certificates. The decisions, therefore, upon the act of William, may be considered as applicable to the 35 G.III. c.101. being made in pari materia.

1st, It has been determined upon the certificate act, that none but those who are become actually chargeable to the parish can be removed from it.


Under 9 & 10
W.III. c.11.

none remov-
able but those

family not re

sidents with

The his father ask and relief, the lat

ter is not

A grandfather resided with his family under a certifi- If A. and his He had a son who married, and took a house in the same parish, and resided apart from his father. son, and his child (after the son's death), had asked obtained relief with the grandfather's knowledge; but thereby neither the grandfather, nor any of his family residing chargeable. with him, asked or obtained relief, or became personally chargeable to the parish. Lord Kenyon C. J. "The single question is, whether the persons who have been removed can, in the fair sense of the words, be said to be actually chargeable to the parish? Now, it is negatived by the case that any of these persons réceived relief in

[blocks in formation]


daughter aged 18, with child, asks relief; father not chargeable. Semble.

person. But it is contended, that they were virtually relieved, because the son and the grandson both received relief. But it must be observed, that at that time they were not members of the family of the pater familias now removed; they lived apart from him, and formed another family of themselves. Then it has been said, that a burthen has been thrown upon the parish by the relief of the son and grandson, and therefore that the grandfather was virtually chargeable, because the 43 Eliz. requires fathers and grandfathers to support their children and grandchildren. But that proposition hastens to a conclusion too soon: for by that statute they are not, at all events, to maintain their grandchildren, &c. but only where they are of sufficient ability. Now the justices are the proper judges of that ability; and the grandfathers, &c. are only to be called upon by an order of justices." (1)

Further, it is not a sufficient ground for the removal of a certificated person, that their unmarried daughter, though residing in the house, is with child. For non constat that it will be born a bastard, and though probable, it is not certain that any burthen will fall on the parish, for she may be married before she is brought to bed. (2)

Also, where a man residing with his family, under a certificate, had a daughter living with him of the age of eighteen, who being pregnant of a child, afterwards born a bastard, asked relief for herself only: Aston J. said, “that he was inclined to be of opinion, that if several persons resided in a parish under the same certificate, the asking relief by a single one of them would not render the rest removable." (3)

(1) Rex v. St. Mary Westport, 3 Term Rep. 44.
(2) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., ibid.

(3) Rex v. Framlingham, Burr. S. C. 748. 2 Bott, 539. Pl. 552. There seems to be but one direct determination, as to how far the head of a family becomes chargeable, and therefore removable by any of its subordinate members becoming so. It is laid down in Waltham v. Sparks, Skin, 566. Comb. 321., that a father who is by nature bound to

« EdellinenJatka »