Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

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 “ actually

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.

The statute was designed to give a more general effect Same as in to those provisions in 9 & 10 W.III. c.11., which en

9 & 10 W.III.

c 11. made abled 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 froin 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.

none remov

Ist, It has been determined upon the certificate act, that Under 9 & 10 none but those who are become actually chargeable to the w.lII.c.ll. parish can be removed from it.

able but those actually

chargeable. A grandfather resided with his family under a certifi- If A. and his cate. He had a son who married, and took a house in family not re

sidents with the same parish, and resided apart from his father. The his father ask son, and his child (after the son's death), had asked and relief, the lat

ter is not 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 négatived by the case that any of these persons réceived relief in

[blocks in formation]

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)

Unmarried Also, where a man residing with his family, under a daughter aged certificate, had a daughter living with him of the age of 18, with child, asks relief;

eighteen, who being pregnant of a child, afterwards born a father not

bastard, asked relief for herself only: Aston J. said, “ that chargeable. Semble. he was inclined to be of opinion, that if several persons re

sided 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

2d. The party must become an actual charge and bur- 2. Party must then to the parish, by receiving relief out of the poor's receive relief fund. The asking relief from a parish officer, without re

from an officer. ceiving it, does not render him chargeable. (1) Neither does the actual receipt of relief from an inhabitant who is not an officer. (2)

It has been decided, that 35 Geo.III. c.101. s.6. which 35 Geo.IJI. enacts, that unmarried women with child shall be deemed

c.101.extends

to pregnant actually chargeable, and may be removed as such, extends single women, to those who reside under a certificate. For although a wo- certificates.

residing under man in this condition was not removable under 9 &10W.III. c.11., solely on that account, as one actually chargeable to the parish (3), yet the words of 35 Geo.III. are sufficiently comprehensive to include her, and there is no reason to narrow the construction, so as to prevent its extending to a case that wanted a remedy. (4)

It has been likewise held, that a married woman who, in Also to a mar

. the absence of her husband abroad, is pregnant under such ried one. circumstances, as that the child would be deemed by law a bastard, is liable to be removed under the 35 Geo. III., though the words of the act are, “ every unmarried woman with child;" for “ the legislature plainly had in view, that every woman pregnant of a child which was not protected by the matrimony of the parents, but would when born be a bastard, should be removable, whether married or unmarried: for though the mother were married, yet if her

maintain his children, being unable to do so, is in that respect impotent
and chargeable to the parish. Different questions might be made respect-
ing different members of a family: ist, The wife; 2d, Unemancipated
children living with the parent, and able to work for their support ;
3d, Unemancipated children disabled from labour by sickness or infancy;
4th, Apprentices unwilling to dissolve their indentures. 5th, The case
of emancipated children seems directly considered by Lord Kenyon in
Rex v. St. Mary Westport, ante, 196. See Jane Carr's case, Rex v.
Overseers of St. Mary in Carlisle, Cald. 76.

(1) Rex o. Kingswood, Burr. S.C. 392.
(2) Ib. and see Great Bedwin v. Wilcot, Burr. S.C.163. post.
(3) See Rex v. St. Mary Westport, ante, 196.
(4) Rex v. Great Yarmouth, 8 Term Rep. 68.

child would by law be a bastard, she was in pari jure within the scope of this act with an unmarried woman who

was pregnant.” (1) Object of

The meaning of 35 Geo. III. c.101. was to prevent the 35 Geo.III. only to pre

removal of persons until actually chargeable, who were bevent removal fore removable if likely to become so; but not to make of persons likely to be.

persons removable who were not proper objects of removal come charge. before that act. (2) Thus, a single woman who is preg. able, until actually so.

nant, and a person of substance, cannot be removed. (3) Does not em. It was held, also, that a single woman who was with child, power the re- and lived in service, could not be removed against her own moval of a single woman or her master's consent, as one actually chargeable under of substance, this act. if pregnant;

For the mere circumstances of a single woman's nor a pregnant being with child, did not before the act operate as a dissoservant maid

lution of the contract of service, and make her liable to be against her master's con- removed, against the consent both of the master and ser

vant. (4)

And in a subsequent case the court adhered to this opinion, that being pregnant with a child, which if born would be illegitimate, amounts to no more than presumptive chargeability, so as to put it on the party disputing that fact, to show that she is a person of substance; or as in Rex v. Alveley, that she is under a contract of hiring and service with another at the time, so as to rebut the presumption of being actually chargeable to the parish, and, consequently, liable to be removed. (5)

sent.

It will be well enough, however, if the complaint states premises from whence the conclusion of the pauper's being chargeable under 35 Geo.III. c. 101. necessarily arises, provided the justices adjudge the pauper to be actually chargeable. (6)

(1) Rex v. Tibbenham, 9 East, 388.
(2) Per Lord Ellenborough C. J., Rex v. Alveley, 3 East, 563.

(3) Per Lawrence J., ib. Per Lord Ellenborough C. J., ibid.; and Rex v. Tibbenham, supra, (1).

(4) Decided, ibid. ; and see ante, Vol. I. supra, (1) n. (1).
(5) Rex v. Tibbenham, chap. xx. sect.iv. parti.

(6) Rex v. Inskip with Sowerby, 5 M. & S. 299. post; and see as to the form of the order, ibid.

Upon appeal against an order of two Justices, made on Since

35 Geo. III., a the 5th day of August 1823, for the removal of J. Asprey, pauper seems with his wife and children, from the parish of St. Botolph, removable

when actually in the town and county of Cambridge, to the parish of

chargeable, alAmpthill, in the county of Bedford, the sessions confirmed though residthe order, subject to the opinion of this court on the fol- ing on a tene

ment above lowing case.

the annual value of 10l.,

unless he has The pauper, a rope-maker, being previously settled, by actually gained estate, in the parish of Ampthill, came with his family to a settlement

before the dereside, in Midsummer 1822, in a house in the parish of livery of the St. Botolph ; he had hired it of one Mitchell for 10l. a year;

order.

Semblable, he put his own furniture therein, worth 151. or 161.; he although tecontinued to live in it about a year; and in July last, being nant pays 101. much distressed, he applied to the parish officers of St. Bo- he will not actolph for relief, who refused to give him any till ordered by quire a settle

ment since a magistrate so to do, after being summoned to show cause

39 Geo. III. why they did not; they then gave the pauper 14s. on the 31st c. 50., if the teof July, according to such order; the tax collectors during of the yearly this month had seized a box, worth 1l., for a quarter's tax value of 1ol. of 3s. in arrear, and the pauper's wife had sold some fur- To acquire a

settlement niture; but what remained in the house at this time was since that act, worth 141., a circumstance which was not communicated

either pay or to the magistrate by the overseer when the order for relief legally tender was made: the day after this relief Mitchell called for his his rent. rent of 101., and gave the pauper a fortnight to pay it in ; soon after this, the pauper and his family were removed to Ampthill under the above order of removal ; he then applied to one Sturge, an auctioneer, to buy his furniture, to enable him to pay his rent. Sturge went to Cambridge, valued it at 131. 3s. exclusive of his tools, which were worth 5l., and agreed to buy them for 101.; which sum he paid to the pauper, who kept the key of the house all the time, and returned to it about the 14th of August, on which day Mitchell had sent a person to distrain for the rent; but no distress was taken, because the bailiffs, Sturge, and the pauper, went together to Mitchell, and the rent was paid by the pauper with the 101. he received from Sturge. Another auctioneer had been employed to sell some of the

tenant must

« EdellinenJatka »