The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of ROTHWELL.

ON appeal against an order of two justices for the removal of James Hopton, his wife and family, from the township of Rothwell to the township of Shafton, both in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the sessions discharged the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case.

The examinations disclosed a settlement in the appellant township of Shafton of Thomas Hopton, the father of the pauper, by evidence of relief given to his widow, the mother of the pauper, in 1841, and at other subsequent times, while the said widow of Thomas Hopton resided out of the appellant township. The appellants admitted the facts stated in the examinations, but relied upon a previous settlement alleged to have been acquired by John Hopton, the father of Thomas Hopton, and grandfather of the pauper, and stated the following ground of appeal:-" That the said John Hopton, the father of the said Thomas Hopton, and the grandfather of the said James Hopton, in or about the month of May, 1806, and for two years thence next ensuing, rented and occupied a house of the yearly value of 201., and situate at Royd's Green, in your said township of Rothwell, (the same township then being a township maintaining its own poor), as tenant thereof to &c.; and the said John Hopton, for more than forty days during his said occupation of the said house, &c., as tenant thereof as aforesaid, resided and slept in your said township of Rothwell; that the said John Hopton, after the commencement of his said occupation of the said premises, never did any other act to gain a settleThat the said Thomas Hopton, after his said father, the said John Hopton, had gained a settlement in your said township of Rothwell, by reason of his

ment.

renting and occupying the said last-mentioned house, &c., of the value last aforesaid, as tenant thereof as aforesaid, and after his said father, the said John Hopton, had resided in your said township more than forty days, whilst he so rented and occupied the same as tenant thereof as aforesaid, was an unemancipated member of his said father (John Hopton's) family, and that neither the said Thomas Hopton nor James Hopton ever did any act to gain a settlement in his own right." The respondents contended that the above ground of appeal was insufficient, inasmuch as the statement therein respecting the non-emancipation of Thomas Hopton, at the time when the settlement was alleged to have been gained by the said John Hopton, was not sufficient to shew, that Thomas Hopton did derive such settlement from his said father John. The sessions overruled the objection, subject to the opinion of this Court.

If the Court shall be of opinion that the above ground of appeal sufficiently averred that Thomas Hopton was unemancipated at the time when the settlement was alleged to have been gained by his father John Hopton, so as to enable him to derive such settlement from his said father John Hopton, then the order of sessions is to be confirmed, otherwise the order of sessions is to be discharged, and the order of justices to be confirmed.

Hall, in support of the order of sessions.-The only question is, whether it sufficiently appears by the ground of appeal that the pauper's father was in a condition to acquire the settlement of the grandfather; and it is sufficient to say that he was "unemancipated," without negativing every possible way in which he might have become emancipated.

Pashley, contrà.-The ground of appeal does not state the age of the father, or how long he continued

1845.

The QUEEN

V.

Inhabitants of
ROTHWELL.

1845.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of
ROTHWELL.

an unemancipated member of the grandfather's family: Rex v. Wilmington (a). [Coleridge, J., referred to Rex v. Bleasby (b). This is no question of time, but whether the use of the word " unemancipated" is sufficient.] There is no legal definition of the word, and it is not vocabulum artis; therefore the circumstances under which he might become emancipated should be negatived. [Lord Denman, C. J.-You might as well contend, that, if the grounds of appeal stated that he had gained no settlement, they should have negatived all the modes by which a settlement can be gained.] In Rex v. Cold Ashton (c), Lord Mansfield, C. J., and Wilmot, J., both objected to the use of the word. The appellants rely upon the fact that the father was unemancipated, and therefore the onus is on them to prove it.

Lord DENMAN, C. J.-The sessions had all the facts of this case before them, and have come to the conclusion, that the father of the pauper had done nothing to emancipate himself. With respect to the word itself, Lord Mansfield and Mr. Justice Wilmot objected to the introduction of it, as being a term of the Roman law; but it has been introduced, and is known to the law, and every where understood, and no doubt the appellants understood it. It is clearly not necessary to negative every possible way in which emancipation may have taken place.

PATTESON, J.-The only question is, whether the averment is sufficient; that is, whether the word " emancipation" is to have any meaning at all. I think it is sufficient.

WILLIAMS, J.-If the term is not understood, it is

(a) 5 B. & A. 525. (b) 3 B. & A. 377. (c) Burr. S. C. 444.

certainly not for want of definition; for Lord Kenyon (a) has taken a good deal of trouble, and I think has been tolerably successful, in explaining what it means. Parish officers understand the word as well as any other in the language.

COLERIDGE, J., concurred.

1845.

The QUEEN

V.

Inhabitants of
ROTHWELL.

Order of sessions confirmed.

(a) In Rex v. Offchurch, 3 T. R. 114, and Rex v.

Roach, 6 T. R.

247.

The QUEEN v. RICHARD WALKER and Others, Esquires. June 4th.

tion for an

order in bastardy by the guardians of a union, under the

2 & 3 Vict. c.

85, the sessions,

after hearing the case refus

ed to make any

IN this case Archbold had obtained a rule nisi, calling On an applica upon Richard Walker, John Grundy, and James Openshaw, Esquires, three of the justices in and for the county of Lancaster, and usually attending at and acting for the petty sessional division of Bury, in the said county, to shew cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue to them, commanding them to proceed upon an application made to them at a petty sessions held on the 31st of January, 1845, by Anne Openshaw, single woman, for an order upon William Porter Holt, as the putative father of a male bastard child, born of the body of the said Anne Openshaw, and to hear and determine such application at a petty sessions to be held for the said division, as by adjournment from the said petty sessions held on the 31st of January.

He moved upon affidavits, which stated that the child was born on the 26th of March, 1844, and, having become chargeable to the parish of Elton, within the Bury Union, the guardians of the poor for that union gave no

VOL. II.

E

N. S. C.

order :-Held, that such application by the

guardians did not prevent the right of the mother of the child to apply for an order

under the 7 &

8

Vict. c. 101.

1845.

The QUEEN

v.

WALKER.

tice to Holt of their intention to apply to the Bury petty sessions, under the 2 & 3 Vict. c. 85, s. 1, for an order to reimburse the union for the maintenance and support of the child. The notice called upon Holt to appear before the Bury petty sessions, on the 9th of August, 1844, on which day the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101 (a), (an