Order of sum in gross for ex pences. such orders sustained. plete on that particular day (1); and if no day be mentioned, it is payable at the commencement of the week. (2) And if it directs that a certain sum be paid towards the expences of the parish on account of the child, it will be good, although it do not particularise what the expences were. (3) An order requiring the defendant "to pay nine pounds in gross immediately upon sight of the order, and after that, so much weekly," is good; for the gross sum might be only for indemnifying the parish for money Instances of previously expended. (4) So likewise one for a sum in gross, "for maintenance and other incident charges." (5) But if it had only stated it to be "for maintenance," it had been too general. (6) So an order adjudging 361. to be paid, part whereof had already been paid, for the maintenance of the child, and other incident charges and expences, held good. For the words, "other incident charges," must be incident to the maintenance; and the rather, as a part thereof is already paid. Wright J. said, that at first he was of a different opinion, and thought the words, "incident charges," extremely general; but on looking into it, he found there were orders as general as this is. (7) An order to the putative father "to pay the churchwardens and overseers of the parish 50s. for the midwife, and other charges, and for the maintenance of the child from its birth, till the day of making the order, and from that day so much a-week, so long as the child shall con (1) Rex v. Weston, 1 Bott, 487. Pl. 619.; and quære, if the payment should not be weekly as the statute directs. For semb. an order to pay monthly is bad. Rex v. Sharpe, 1 Sid. 222. but adjourned. (2) Rex v. Fearnley, 1 Term Rep. 316. ante, 265. (3). (3) Rex v. Skinn. 1 Bott, 470. Pl. 587. (4) Rex v. Odham, 1 Salk. 124. (5) Rex v. Gravesend, 1 Bott, 491. Pl. 635. upon the authority of Reg. v. Odham, and see Rex v. Eve, 2 Show. 256. But Rex v. Colbert, 1 Bott, 486. Pl. 615. is contra. (6) Rex v. Gravesend, supra. (7) Rex v. Moravia, 1 Bott, 492. Pl, 636. tinue chargeable," is good, although it is not adjudged that so much as 50s. had actually been expended by the parish. For the justices may indemnify the parish in gross, for the charges of lying-in, and other incidental charges, and the charges of the midwife, &c. fall upon the parish. (1) And it need not state by whom the money is disbursed. (2) It is likewise no objection that it orders the money to be paid to the overseers. (3) May order the money to be paid to the Overseers. der reasonable maintenance. 13. In some cases, the court of king's bench seem to 13. Should orhave quashed an order, where the sum thereby required to be paid was either unreasonably small or excessively large. (4) the The 14. The justices have power to order the parent to pay so far as is necessary to indemnify the parish for expence of maintaining the bastard, but no further. payment, therefore, should be limited in the order to such time as the child shall be a burthen upon the parish. An order to pay so much a-week indefinitely, is bad. (5) The usual form is, "during so long a time as the said bastard child shall be chargeable (6);" or if it be "till it shall be no longer chargeable," it is good. (7) So it is well enough, if it directs 4s. a-week to be paid, during so long as the (1) Rex v. Fox, 1 Bott, 493. Pl. 638. Rex v. Hartington, Upper Quarter, 4 M. & S. 559. But see Rex v. Sherman, 1 Vent. 210. (2) Reg. v. Smith, 1 Bott, 487. Pl. 618. (5) Rex v. Weston, Salk. 122. The objection was, that by the order the father was directed to pay to the overseers of the poor, and that it ought to have been to the inhabitants of the parish generally; but the Court were of opinion, that, as before the institution of overseers, the justices might order the money to be paid to two or three of the inhabitants, so now they may to the overseers. (4) An order to pay 2d. a-week, quashed, as too small. Rex v. Perkasse, 1 Sid. 363. Also, an order to pay 78. a-week, 24 Car. II. quashed, as excessive, Rex v. Sherman, 1 Vent. 210. (5) Rex v. Matthews, 2 Salk. 475. (6) It is the right way. Per Lee C.J. Newland v. Osman, 1 Bott, 460. Pl.574. (7) Rex v. Johnson, Comb. 69. See 13 East, 57. (a). child is charge able. If while two bastards chargeable, good. Orders till child arrive at a certain age held good. Such orders when bad. 15. Cannot two female bastard children shall be chargeable, without specifying how much for each; for if either die, the party is discharged. (1) But orders requiring the payment "till the child was eight years old (2),” or “nine, if it should so long live (3)," or till twelve years old (4), have been held good, because it cannot be intended to be able to provide for itself sooner. Yet it seems to have been plausibly objected in the first of these cases, that possibly the child might gain a settlement, or a person might give him an estate, or his father might take him. But the Court thought these possibilities too remote. (5) But an order to pay 3s. weekly, "till the child attains. the age of fourteen years, was held bad.” (6) And in one case, an order adjudging the reputed father to pay so much, till the child be of seven years of age, was quashed; for they cannot charge the father for any certain determinate time, but as long as the child shall be chargeable to the parish. (7) 15. Further, the justices cannot order a sum to be paid order a sum in at a future day for a particular purpose, as for binding gross to be paid the child apprentice, for perhaps it may never be necesat future day. sary. (8) And if the order direct that the putative father (4) Rex v. Buckall, 1 Barnard. K. B. 261. But Barwell's case, 1 Vent. 48. is contra, and in Reg. v. Collins, 11 Mod. 178. Reg. v. Atkins, ib. 172. orders to pay till child be ten years old, quashed for this defect. (5) Smith's case, ante, (2). But see the reasoning of Twisden J., Rex v. Sherman, 1 Vent. 210. (6) Rex v. Barebaker, 2 Salk. 486. Semb. Rex v. Sharpe, 1 Sid. 222. (7) Rex v. Brown, 2 Salk. 480. and see the reasoning of Twisden J., supra, (5), and the cases cited, supra, n. (4). (8) Rex v. Willey, 1 Bott, 490. Pl. 632. Rex v. Brown, Comberbach, 448. Rex v. Atkins, 11 Mod. 172. S. P. "shall give security to the parish to perform the order," it is bad as to that. (1) 16. By 49 Geo.III. c. 68. s.1.4. the putative father is 16. Nor father made liable to pay all reasonable charges and expences rity. to give secuincident to the birth of the child, and also the reasonable costs of apprehending and securing him, and likewise those of the order of filiation, all which are to be at the discretion of the justices or court making the order of filiation, who are authorized to order payment of the whole or part thereof, provided that the costs of apprehending and securing the father and of the order of filiation shall not in any case exceed 10%. But to render him thus liable, the child must be born alive; for all the provisions in the several statutes respecting bastardy assume that the child is born alive, and many provisions in this as well as the former acts are inapplicable to a dead child. (2) SECT. VI. Of Orders of Filiation by the Justices at their Quarter Sessions. 3 Car. I. c. 4. BEFORE 3 Car. I. c.4. the sessions had no authority to Power by meddle in the case of bastardy, till the two next justices, according to the statute of 18 Eliz. c.3. had made an order therein; and then, and not before, the justices in sessions might make a new order, &c. otherwise not. (3) But they (1) Rex v. Fox, 1 Bott, 472. Pl. 590. and the cases in the margin. Rex v. Eve, 2 Show, 256. See Rex v. Sharpe, 1 Sid. 222. Smith's case, 2 Bulst. 342. Also post, 314. (3). (2) Rex v. De Brouquens, 14 East, 277. (3) Slater's case, Cro. Car. 471. 1 Bott, 498. Pl. 727. The authority of the sessions, where it is not expressly given by statute, is thus declared by Lord Hardwicke: "If authority be given to two justices of peace, to do an act, and no appeal is given, then it may commence at sessions; but if an appeal be given, then it cannot be begun at sessions. Rex v. Bartlett, 1 Bott, 306. Pl. 320. Orders of bastardy by sessions rare. Must summon party. have authority to make an original order in such cases, under the first-mentioned statute. (1) Original orders of this sort are not commonly made at sessions; the usual way being, to bring the matter before that court by way of appeal, from an order of two justices. (2) The same formality and precision is required in orders of this kind when made there, as if they had been made by two magistrates out of session. It is essential to right and justice, that the party should be summoned previous to their making an order upon Order need not him; but that summons need not be set forth on the face of the proceeding, as the superior court will presume there was one, unless the contrary appear. (3) set it forth. Order on constable and the mother, quashed as to the constable. May quash or Where the putative father was apprehended upon a warrant, and the constable let him escape, an order of sessions made upon the constable, to pay 31. towards the expences the parish had been at, and 1s. a week towards the maintenance of the child, and the mother to pay 6d. a-week, was quashed, as to the constable, the justices not having authority to make it, but confirmed as to the mother. (4) It seems as if the justices may at the same sessions der on appeal, quash, upon appeal, an order of bastardy made by two and make an other. (1) Slater's case, ante, 307.(3). Wood's case, 2 Bulst. 355, Rex v. Messenger, 1 Bott. 491. Pl. 633. Rex v. Clegg, 1 Str. 475. Rex v. Greaves, Dougl. 632. Rex v. Price, 6 Term Rep. 147. (2) They are said to be very rare. Per Pratt C.J., Rex v. Clegg, supra,(1). But the practice seems to have altered in this respect, in some counties, since statutes 6 Geo. II. c. 31. and 49 Geo. III. c. 68. (3) Rex v. Clegg, supra, (1). Pratt C. J. at first contra. Rex v. Clayton, 3 East, 58. and see ante, 299. (5). Rex v. Hawkins, Poor Sett. 127. contra. (4) Reg. v. Ridge, 11 Ann. 1 Bott, 499. Pl. 651. |