Extends only to adjudications on merits. And where A. is sent by an order to B. who appeals, and the order is confirmed, B. cannot send him to C. without stating that A. had gained a new settlement; and no new settlement appearing, the order of removal was quashed. (1) An order of two justices removed J. S., his wife, and four children, from T. to B. 30th December 1754. An order of sessions discharging this order was made next Epiphany sessions. An order of two justices, 28th March, 1755, removed the wife and four children from T. to B. and an order made at the next Easter sessions confirmed it. These orders being removed by certiorari into the king's bench, the first was quashed, the second affirmed, and the third and fourth were also quashed, because it did not appear thereby that the wife and children had gained a new settlement in B. (2) This rule in case of appeals, obtains only where the judgment of sessions is upon the merits. If an order is quashed for a defect in form, it concludes nothing between the parishes which are parties to the decision, and consequently a second order need not set forth a fresh settlement subsequent to the time when the first was made. (3) But if the sessions erroneously quash an order of justices which is substantially good, for a defect in form, such ing to appeal against the removal from B. thither. In most cases F. might have disputed the same question with A., upon which the latter had succeeded in its appeal against B. See Rex v. Bentley, Burr. S. C. 425. post. (1) Little Bitham v. Somerby, 1 Str.232. Yet see Thackam v. Findon, 2 Salk. 489. Where the justices said they would intend a subsequent settlement, after the lapse of four years. But in Capel v. West Peckham, where there was a similar lapse of four years, the court said they could intend nothing as to a new settlement, and quashed the order. Fortes. 327. 2 Sess. Cas. 81. (2) Rex v. Bradenham, ante, 233. (3). (3) Rex v. St. Andrew's, Holborn, 6 Term Rep. 615. Rex v. Penge, Nol. Rep. 176. order is a bar, notwithstanding, to all subsequent orders, which do not show that the persons to be removed have acquired a subsequent settlement. (1) The principle of these decisions, therefore, seems to require, that a subsequent settlement must be stated in all cases where the parish removing is concluded by the first order as to the party's settlement, whether against the world, or the particular parish to which the removal is made; but where it is at liberty to controvert the settlement, notwithstanding the order, it is unnecessary to aver a new one. (2) Or where removing parish, concluded by original order. SECT. IV. Of executing an Order of Removal. executed. WHEN an order has been thus made and signed (3), Order how it is the duty of the parish officers, who are directed to remove the paupers, to have them safely conveyed, at the expence of their parish (4), to the place thereby required to receive and provide for them. If the paupers refuse to remove in obedience to the order, it seems to contain sufficient powers to enable the persons to whom it is directed to convey them by force; but at all events the parish may obtain a warrant, under the hand and seals of the magistrates, to enforce it by compulsory means. The person, to whom the duty of removal is entrusted, should safely deliver the poor, together with the order, to one of the parish officers of the parish directed to receive them. Or if only one original is made, he should give a (1) Munger Hunger v. Warden, Sett. & Rem. 160. 2 Const. 702. Pl. 817. (2) See ante, 234. n. (2). (3) It is usual for the justices to make and sign duplicates, that one may be delivered to the parish officers, directed to receive the pauper, and the other retained by the removing parish, or the magistrates. (4) Per Lee C. J., Rex v. Stansfield, Burr. S. C. 205. post, 239. (1). By whom conveyed. 54 Geo.III. c.170. s.10. Punishment when officers refuse to obey copy, and shew the original. But if the original is delivered, and a copy kept, that is sufficient. (1) It seems also to be enough to produce the justice's warrant to convey the pauper, inasmuch as the magistrates may retain the original order. (2) It was formerly considered as necessary that the pauper should be conveyed by the overseer to whom the order was directed. But now by 54 Geo.III. c.170. s.10. it is enacted, That churchwardens, overseers, or others, having the control, ordering, or management of the poor of any district, parish, township or hamlet, may employ any proper person or persons whomsoever, to carry, remove, and deliver any pauper or paupers, ordered to be removed by any of his majesty's justices of the peace competent to make such order; and that a delivery by such person or persons of any pauper or paupers so ordered to be removed, shall be as good, valid, and effectual, to all purposes whatsoever, as if the same was or were delivered by any churchwarden or overseer whatsoever. If the parish officers refuse to execute or obey an order of this kind, they may be punished by indictment (3); for the only means by which a parish, thus required to receive a pauper, can get rid of the order, is by appeal to the quarter sessions. (4) The duplicate original order should be carried by one of the justices who signed it, to the next general or quarter (1) See Rex v. Kirkby Stephen, 2 Bott, 675. Pl. 736., a copy made by the pauper admitted in evidence after notice to produce the original served on the parish removed to. (2) See the opinion of Holt C. J., ante, 147. (3) See 13&14 Car.II. c.12. s.3. As to the punishment of parish officers for neglect of duty, see post, title, Remedies against Parish Officers, &c. (4) See post, title, Appeal. sessions, and retained in the hands of the clerk of the peace, as a conclusive record of the settlement, where the receiving parish neglects to appeal. (1) SECT. V. Of the Removal of the Poor by Pass-Warrants. As this species of removal is not strictly a part of the law respecting the settlement and maintenance of the poor, it does not require a minute examination in the present work. It depends upon 17 Geo.II. c.5. s.7. s.8. s.10., 32 Geo.III. Statutes reguc.45. s.l. s.3. s.4. s.5. s.6. s.7. (2), which preserve the an- by pass, lating removals cient distinction already observed upon, between the vagrant and impotent poor. (3) persons in a These laws only respect persons who are in a state of Respect only actual vagrancy, such as they describe. No other persons state of vacan be sent by a pass, even at their own request (4); but they must be regularly removed to their place of settlement, by an order of two justices, under 13&14 Car.II. grancy. No others removable thereby. C.44. s.1. The 32 Geo.III. c.45. s. 1. recites, that great abuses 35 Geo.III. are committed in conveying, from one place to another, by passes, persons who were not rogues and vagabonds, and enacts, by way of remedy, that all rogues, or vagabonds, when ordered to be passed, shall be either publicly whipped, or imprisoned in the house of correction till (1) See ante, 147. The proper officer is the custos rotulorum. Per Holt C. J., Skin. 528, 529., the clerk of the peace being his deputy to this purpose. See 37 Hen. VIII. 1. 1W.& M. c.21. s. 5. Harcourt v. v.Fox, Show. 429. 506. 516. 536. Show. Par. Ca. 163. 4 Mod. 167. (2) See Vol. III. (3) Ante, Vol. I. 268. (4) Rex v. Welcham, 2 Bott, 658. Pl. 721. Must be a con viction to warrant a pass. Distinction between passes and orders of removal. Object of 13 Geo.II. to operate only on vagabonds. the next sessions, or for a shorter period, at the justice's discretion, but not for less than seven days. (1) By the express words of this statute, the party must not only have committed an act of vagrancy, but be convicted thereof, before he is removed under a pass. (2) The distinction between passes and orders of removal is thus clearly explained by Lord C. J. Lee. "We have considered the question, whether, by the late act of 13 Geo.II. c.24. a pass, unappealed from, be as conclusive as an order of two justices unappealed from? and we are of opinion, that this act of parliament is not to receive such construction, or be considered in such manner, as to put a pass upon the foot of an order of two justices, in this respect. In case of an order of two justices, two other justices cannot make a different order, because the authority of each two would be equal; and therefore it would be a clashing of the same authority. But that does not seem to be the present case at all. This act of parliament of 13 Geo.II. was made only in order to secure vagabonds, and to send them to their former place of settlement or birth, if to be found; if not, then to the places from whence they came; and it operates upon such as are actually vagabonds. But the act of 13&14 Car.II. c.12. Car.II. to pre- was made with a view to prevent vagabonds, and therefore it gave power to fix them in their last place of settlement. But, the authorities given by these two acts are very different. On that act of 13&14 Car.II. c.12., though complaint may be made to one justice, yet one justice cannot act singly; here, one single justice may act. So there is a difference too as to the manner of sending them. Upon that act, the removal is to be at the expense of the parish; here, of the county. Another thing that makes one believe the parliament did not intend to put this pass-warrant, signed by a single justice, upon the foot of an order, made Act 13 & 14 vent them. Difference be tween powers given under these acts. As to number of justices. Manner of sending. (1) But as to removal of Irish and Scotch poor, &c. see 59 Geo.III. c.11. s.32. post, 247. (2) Sect. 1. This point was unsettled prior to this act. See Rex t Elere Cole, 2 Bott, 670. Pl. 729. |