Adjudication must be cer tain. May refer to statement in complaint. "On examin they are removed to be the last legal settlement of the children, it need not specify their ages. (1) V. Of the Adjudication. AN order of removal is a judgment which must be certain and positive; although, therefore, there is no necessity for any particular form of words (2), yet it ought, in averring all essential facts, to use express and positive words of adjudication; as, "we adjudge;" or, " it appears to us, &c. ;"" the parties are, &c. ;" and it must either set them forth in the adjudication, or plainly refer to them when sufficiently stated in the complaint. (3) Thus, where it only stated, "we, on examination do ation believe, believe the same to be true;" this was held to be no adjudication, and the order was quashed. (4) the same true," bad. Settled " ac So, if it adjudge that the pauper was last legally settled cording to our in B. " according to their knowledge,” it is uncertain; for knowledge," the pauper might be settled elsewhere, and the justices not know it. (5) &c. bad. Two things to The same things must be adjudged in this part of the be adjudged. order, as should be stated in the complaint, viz. Rex v. Trinity, in Chester, 2 Sess. Cas. 74. Rex v. Leverington, Burr. S. C. 276., where one of the children removed was eight years old; the judges in court concurred in opinion " that children of such tender age cannot be supposed to have gained any other settlement than the derivative one from their father." (1) Rex v. Hepenstall, Burr. S. C. 88. 654. Pl.710, 711. S. P. Rex v. Bowling, Rex v. Ufculm, ib. 138. 2 Bott, manton, ib. 213. Rex v. Stansfield, ib. 205. ante, 222. (2). Ringmore v. Petworth, Sett. & Remov. 41. Reg. v. Middleham, post, 228. (4). Rex v. Bucklebury, ib. (5). (2) Per Lee C. J., Ufculm v. Clysthydon, Burr. S. C. 138. (3) See the opinion of Lord Hardwicke C. J., Bourne v. Spalding, Burr. S. C. 38. (4) Stallingborough v. Haxhay, 1 Sess. Cas. 131. (5) Rex v. St. Mary Ottery, Sett. & Remov. 32. chargeable ; 1st, That the parties are actually chargeable to the 1st, Party parish making the complaint, which is usually done by 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. ment. since As the complaint, since 35 G.III. c.101. must state (2), 1st, Actually so the order must adjudge, that the parties are actually chargeable chargeable to the parish, as was previously necessary 35 Geo.III. where paupers resided under a certificate. c.101. A man who came into a parish by certificate was re- As in case of moved by an order, setting forth," that they removed him certificated because he was likely to become chargeable." It was quashed; for they cannot remove him until he becomes actually chargeable to the parish. (3) paupers. 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. is actually come into the parish of, &c. with a certificate according to chargeable, 8&9 W.III. is actually chargeable, &c.," and quashed; for the justices must adjudge him to be chargeable, or at least must say it appeared to them that he was so. (4) &c." bad. (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 35 Geo.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 v. 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. "Whereas it appears to us, upon the oath of E. J., relict of E. J., that she and her daughter Mary were last legally settled in R., who are likely to become chargeable.” The adjudication is sufficient; for the words, "who are likely to become chargeable," are always the words of the 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) And if it state that "they have become chargeable,” it is sufficient, for this must mean that they are become so. (2) The complaint should likewise shew, that they are [likely to] (3) become chargeable to the parish from whence 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. v. 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 v. 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, Rex v. Bradford, Sett. and Rem. 40. Nicholas v. St. Peter's, 2 Sess. Cas. 73.. Rex v. Minchinghampton, 2 Sess. Cas. 92. Rex v. Spalding, Burr. S. C45. Where the adjudication was, "that he was likely to become chargeable," 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 v. Whitam, I 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, 1st, That the parish of E. is at first mentioned in it; and "and has lately intruded himself into your then it goes on, 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 last settlemoved to the where 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 him to be removed to A, as the place of his last legal settlement," bad, as there is no adjudication. (5) "That the pauper was legally settled at B., according to their knowledge," 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) "Whereas complaint has been made unto us that E. F., wife of U. F., is lately come into the parish of St. Giles', (1) The Chief Justice was absent. (4) Bury v. Arundell, 2 Salk. 9. (5) Rex v. Westwood, 1 Str. 73. (6) Reg. v. St.Mary Ottery, Sett. & Rem. 32. Removed to B. દ as the place of his last legal settlement," bad. Adjudication of widow's set tlement. Removal of dren to hus band's settle ment, must adjudge them his. 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) An order adjudged "that J. S. was settled at B., and, therefore, the justices remove his widow and children to B.;" quashed, for the wife may get a settlement after the death of her husband. (2) An order removed F. S. and F. her daughter, about wife and chil- four years old. E. her daughter, about two years and a half old. It further recited, that it appeared to the justices, upon the oath of F. S., "that her husband, G. S., 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 above seven, was ten years The exception to an order was, because the justices set 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 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) cient. AdjudgBut if being made for the removal of certain children without their parents, it adjudges the parish to be the last legal it to be that of settlement of those children by name, whom it states to be under the age of seven, it need not adjudge it to be the settlement of their father. (5) ing their own settlement, need not state the parent. 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, 1 Sess. Cas. 45. Pl. 691. (3) Rex v. Mansfield, Burr. S. C. 76. (4) Reg. v. Middleham, Fol. 271. See ante, 224, &c. (1). |