Sivut kuvina

1st, That the parties are actually chargeable to the 1st, Party parish making the complaint, which is usually done by chargeable ; adjudging the complaint to be true. (1)

2d, That they are legally settled in the parish to which 2d, His settleit is directed that they shall be conveyed.


As the complaint, since 35G.III. c.101. must state (2), 1st, Actually so the order must adjudge, that the parties are actually since

chargeable chargeable to the parish, as was previously necessary 35Geo. III. where paupers resided under a certificate.


A man who came into a parish by certificate was re- As in case of

certificated moved by an order, setting forth, “ that they removed him

paupers. because he was likely to become chargeable.” It was quashed; for they cannot remove him until he becomes actually chargeable to the parish. (3)

An order was made, reciting, that " whereas complaint « Complaint, has been made unto us by the, &c. that J. S., who is lately &c. that J. S. come into the parish of, &c. with a certificate according to chargeable, 8&9 W.III. is actually chargeable, &c.," and quashed;

&c." bad. for the justices must adjudge him to be chargeable, or at least must say it appeared to them that he was so. (4)

(1) See the form of the Order, 3 Burn's Just., tit. Removal. (2) Ante, 219.

(3) Malden and Fletwick, 2 Salk. 530. Teelby v. Willerton, 1 Str. 77. S. P.; and it must be so alleged in the complaint, ante, 219.

(4) Malden v. Fletwick, 2 Salk. 530. and prior to 35Geo.III. c.101. See Suddlecomb v. Burwash, 2 Salk. 491., and various decisions quashing orders for want of an express adjudication, that the party was likely to become chargeable. “ Will become chargeable, if permitted to abide," Anon., Sett. & Rem. 39. “ Likely to become chargeable, as we are credibly informed,” ib. 38. Or that he “ may become chargeable,” Teelby t. Willerton, 1 Str. 77. held bad. An order removing a poor child was quashed, because it was not said that the parents were unknown or likely to become chargeable to the parish: for though a child of three months old be helpless, yet the parents are bound to provide for it. Christ's Hospital's case, 2 Salk. 485.

[merged small][ocr errors]

“ It appears to “ Whereas it appears to us, upon the oath of E. J., us, on oath of J., that she and relict of E. J., that she and her daughter Mary were last her daughter, legally settled in R., who are likely to become chargeable." &c. who were The adjudication is sufficient; for the words, “who are likely to become charge. likely to become chargeable,” are always the words of the able, &c.” sufficient.

justices; if it had been, that “they are likely to become chargeable,” then it had been a recital only, and the words of the overseers. (1)

“Have become

And if it state that “they have become chargeable." chargeable," good. it is sufficient, for this must mean that they are become

so. (2)

Adjudge them The complaint should likewise shew, that they are chargeable to the parish re. (likely to] (3) become chargeable to the parish from whence moved from. they are removed, and there must be an adjudication of the

truth of it. An adjudication in this form: “and whereas upon due examination and enquiry made into the premises, it appears to us, and we accordingly adjudge, that the said, &c. are likely to become chargeable;" without adding to what parish, was quashed, although it might have been inferred, that they must have become chargeable to the parish making the complaint. (4)

(1) Reg. o. Rockville, Sett. and Remov. 21. Quære tamen as to the latter observation; for the order would still run, “ It appears to us, upon the oath of E. J., &c., that she and her daughter, &c., are likely to become chargeable.” The insertion of the relative pronoun “who," seems to make no difference in the sense. See Rex o. Binegar, 7 East, 377. ante, 192.(3).

(2) Rex v. Honiton, Burr. S. C. 680. Rex v. Binegar, supra, (1).

(3) These words must be omitted since 35 Geo.III. c.102. See ante, 225. (2).

(4) Ufculm v. Clysthydon, Burr, S. C. 158. S. P. adjudged, Rexs Bradford, Sett. and Rem. 10. Nicholas v. St. Peter's, 2 Sess. Cas 75. Rex o. Minchinghampton, 2 Sess. Cas. 92. Rex v. Spalding, Burr. S. G45. Where the adjudication was, “ that he was likely to become charge able," omitting every thing as to what parish he was so; so that it might be to his relations. Rex v. Netherton, Burr. S. C. 139. But Rex . Wbitam; 1 Str. 142. Maidstone v. Dothing, ib. 393. Rex v. Leofield, ib. 698. are contra, but they are said to be loose notes. See Burn's Just." tit. Removal.

Two objections were taken to an order of removal, Ist, That the parish of E. is at first mentioned in it; and then it goes on, “ and has lately intruded himself into your said town of E.” So that it is uncertain whether E. be a town or a parish. But this objection was over-ruled as being over-nice. The 2d objection was, That the pauper is only alleged to be “likely to become chargeable there. Which does not allege“ that he was likely to become chargeable to the parish.” Denison J. and Forster J. (1) over-ruled the objection. But Wright J. took it that the word there" did not necessarily import that the pauper was likely to become so to the parish. (2)

2d, It must adjudge the place to which he is removed 2d, Place reto be the place of the pauper's last legal settlement, except

moved to the

last settlewhere the removal is back to a parish giving a certificate; ment. for the justices need not adjudge it in that case. (3) “ Whereas complaint has been made to us that J. D., with his wife and children, came from his place of abode and last legal settlement in B. to A., we therefore require you, &c.” This order was quashed as naught; for there is no adjudication which was the place of his last legal settlement, but only a complaint that B. was. (4) « We order Removed to B. him to be removed to A, as the place of his last legal settle

as the place

of his last legal ment," bad, as there is no adjudication. (5) " That the settlement, pauper was legally settled at B., according to their knoró- bad. ledge,” bad, for he might be settled elsewhere and the justices not know it. (6) Or, “ that B. is, as we are credibly informed, the place of his legal settlement," bad. (7)

[ocr errors]

“ Whereas complaint has been made unto us that E. F., On oath it apwife of U. F., is lately come into the parish of St. Giles', pears, that her

“ last legally

settled, &c." (1) The Chief Justice was absent.

bad. (2) Rex. o. Eakring, Burr. S. C. 320. (3) Malden o. Fletwick, 2 Salk. 530. (4) Bury v. Arundell, 2 Salk. 9. (5) Rex v. Westwood, 1 Str. 73. (6) Reg. v. St.Mary Ottery, Sett. & Rem. 32. (7) Trowbridge v. Weston, 2 Salk. 473.

and is likely to become chargeable to the same; and whereas, on oath made by the said E. F., it appears that her husband was last legally settled at H.; these are therefore, &c. quashed, because there is no judgment of the justices concerning the last legal settlement, but only the oath of the woman. (1)

Adjudication An order adjudged " that J. S. was settled at B., and, of widow's set- therefore, the justices remove his widow and children to tlement.

B.;" quashed, for the wife may get a settlement after the death of her husband. (2)

Removal of An order removed F. S. and F. her daughter, about wife and chil- four years old. E. her daughter, about two years and a band's settle- half old. It further recited, that it appeared to the jusment, inust ad- tices, upon the oath of F. S., “ that her husband, G. S., judge them his.

was legally settled in the parish of M.;" quashed, for though it does not appear that the woman is a widow, and the wife and children must follow the husband's settlement, yet the children are not removed as his children, nor the woman as his wife. (3)

If children The exception to an order was, because the justices set above seven, must adjudge

forth that M. was the last legal settlement of the father, their place of therefore they send the son there, and it appeared that he settlement, adjudging it to

was ten years old. It was quashed, because there was no be that of their adjudication of the son's settlement, and it is not of absofather, insuffi. lute necessity that the father's settlement should be his. (4) ing their own But if being made for the removal of certain children withsettlement,

out their parents, it adjudges the parish to be the last legal need not state it to be that of settlement of those children by name, whom it states to the parent.

be under the age of seven, it need not adjudge it to be the settlement of their father. (5)

It was objected to an order adjudging that the paupers

(1) Rex v. Hackney, 2 Salk. 478. The words “ to us" were omitted after “it appears."

(2) Egburn v. Hartly Wintly, i Sess. Cas. 45. Pl. 691.
(3) Rex v. Mansfield, Burr. S. C. 76.
(4) Reg. v. Middleham, Fol. 271. See ante, 224, &c. (1).
(5) Rex v. Bucklebury, i Term Rep. 164.

were last legally settled in M., that this is no adjudication of a present settlement. But by Lord Ellenborough C. J. It refers to the time of the complaint made, and the court cannot intend an intermediate settlement between the hearing of the complaint and the making of the order. (1)

An order adjudged, “ the last legal place of the said H. Omission of

the word is at W.” omitting the words of settlement, and was quashed.

settlement," Per Curiam. Here is no adjudication of a settlement, and fatal. these orders are never to be made good by implication. (2)

An order which states that the pauper came into the How far must parish under a certificate, need not set forth that it was

state certifiallowed by two justices, at least if it go on to adjudge his settlement to be in the parish by which it was granted. (3)


As to the description of the parties, both in the complaint and adjudication, see ante. (4)

VI. Of the Direction of the Order. The remaining essential circumstance is the fruit or Require offieffect of the order, which is to require the officers of the cers of com.

plaining parish complaining parish to remove the pauper; and, those of to remove. Of the place in which the settlement is adjudged to be, to re- settlement pa

rish to receive ceive and provide for him. If, therefore, it does not say and provide ' which is to convey, and which is to receive, the persons to for.

Not stating be removed (5); or if it directs both to remove and re- which to receive (6), it is bad; and it is à fortiori defective, where it ceive, and is directed solely to the officers of the parish in which the whichado

. consettlement is adjudged to be, and requires them to convey Or if it directs

both to rethe pauper thence; for the justices ought, and can only

move and re

ceive. (1) Rex v. Binegar, 7 East, 377. See Rex v. Honiton, ante, 226.(2). (2) Rex v. Warnhill, 2 Sess. Cas. 91. ante, 226. (4). (3) Reg. v. Newton, 1 Sess. Cas. 161.

(4) 223. IV., and that the power of adjudication and removal is limited by the complaint, ante, 218.

(5) Binfield v. Banstead, 11 Mod. 268. (6) Bedwitch's case, Comb. 325.

« EdellinenJatka »