1847.

v.

The Justices of

ment of the wife and children depended, had then been

The QUEEN actually removed; and the appellants might then have appealed against the whole order; but now they have DURHAM. accepted the man, and therefore this order is functus officio as regards him, and yet they now seek to be permitted to appeal against the whole order.-He was then stopped by the Court.

Heath, in support of the rule.-It is admitted that a parish cannot appeal on the actual removal, if it has already appealed on the service of the order; but it is submitted that the appellants, in this case, have a right to appeal against part of the order. The acts of Parliament giving power of appeal are remedial acts, and are to be construed liberally; and, though Gamby may be settled in the appellant parish, it may be that the woman is not his wife, and that the children are illegitimate. [Wightman, J.-Was that one of the grounds of appeal?] If this rule is refused, it must be on the ground that our appeal is too large, and that we ought only to have appealed against part; but the real grievance took place when the pauper and family were removed.

WIGHTMAN, J.—I cannot say that the sessions have done wrong; and if I were to grant this rule, I should be going farther than ever has been done before. The order was made in March, 1846, for the removal of the man, his wife, and children: the man is removed, but not the wife and children. In December, the man having returned, is removed again along with his wife and children, and then, for the first time, the parish appeals. Now, there might have been an appeal against the order upon the actual removal of the man, because his settlement governs the settlement of his wife and children; but the parish, after admitting the

settlement of the man, now seeks to be permitted to appeal against an order for the removal of the whole family.

Rule discharged.

1847.

The QUEEN

v.

The Justices of
DURHAM.

The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of CRONDALL.

ON appeal against an order of two justices of the county of Surrey, dated the 5th March, 1845, for the removal of Martha Croucher, widow, and her eight children, from the parish of Elstead, in the county of Surrey, to the parish of Crondall, in the county of Hants, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the

opinion of the Court on a case.

June 10th.

A pauper, while parish A. was relieved, on account of parish B., by the relieving officer of a union in which parish

residing in

B. is situate, by

order to that

effect of the

The following were the examinations on which the board of guar

order was made:-
:-

66

Surrey, to wit.

The examination of Martha Croucher, lately residing in the parish of Elstead, in the county of Surrey, and now an inmate of the workhouse of the Hambledon Union, in the said county, widow, touching the place of her settlement and the settlement of her eight children, taken upon oath, &c. The said Martha Croucher, on her oath, says I am about thirty-eight years of age, and am the widow of James Croucher, late of the parish of Elstead, in the

said county of Surrey, deceased. I was married to my said late husband at the parish church of Crondall, in the county of Hants, in the month of January, 1826; and I and my said husband constantly resided at Crookham, in the parish of Crondall aforesaid, from the time of our marriage until the latter part of the year 1837. During the time I and my said husband lived Crookham, we were several times relieved during the

at

dians of that union :-Held,

that such relief

afforded evi

dence from

which the ses

sions might in

fer that the

pauper was settled in parish B.

Where a pau

per was exa

mined before

justices in February, and again in March, on which last order of re

occasion an

moval was

made, a copy of the state

ment made by

the pauper on

the first occa

sion, not being properly exebeing an exa

cuted, and not

mination on

which the order

was made, need not be sent by

the respondents under the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 79.

1847.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of
CRONDALL.

winter months by the parish of Crondall, with an allow-
ance of bread; and I and children were once relieved
my
by being taken into the union-house of the Hartley
Wintney Union, of which union the parish of Crondall
aforesaid was then and is now part, where we remained
six or seven days, without any endeavour to remove my
husband and family to another parish. I have by my
said husband eight children (naming them), who are
with me in the workhouse of the Hambledon Union, all
of whom were born in lawful wedlock. In the year
1838 my said husband went to live in the said parish of
Elstead. He was taken ill and unable to work; this
was in the latter end of 1839, or the beginning of 1840.
In consequence of his illness, I applied to Mr. Lodge,
Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Chaundler, of Crondall parish,
for relief. They told me I must apply to the parish
where I lived, and that they must settle it with that
parish. I accordingly applied to Mr. George Woods,
the relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, and he
relieved my husband several times during his illness
with money. My husband died in the month of June
last. At the time of his death he and his family were
living in Elstead parish. Very soon after his death I
applied to the overseers of Elstead for relief. I was at
first relieved by them with money and bread, and after-
wards was removed with my said children from Elstead
parish, in which we were then living, to the poor-house
of the Hambledon Union, where we are now supported
at the expense of Elstead parish, which forms part of the
Hambledon Union. I continued to reside with my said
children in the parish of Elstead from the time of my
husband's death till we were removed to the Hambledon
union-house. None of my said children have gained a
settlement in his or her own right.'

"MARTHA CROUCHER."

"The examination of Samuel Andrews, on his oath,

saith: 'I am one of the relieving officers of the Hartley Wintney Union, in the county of Southampton. The parish of Crondall forms part of the said union, and is situate in the district of the said union for which I am the relieving officer. I produce a letter hereto annexed, which I received from George Woods, the relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, in the county of Surrey, containing an account of the relief given by him to James Croucher and his family, amounting to 21. 2s. 9d., whilst resident in the parish of Elstead in the said county of Surrey, and an application for the payment of the amount. In consequence, I made a report of the application to the board of guardians of the Hartley Wintney Union. I produce the application and reportbook for my district of the said Hartley Wintney Union, commencing the 25th of December, 1836, and ending the 25th of December, 1840. This contains an entry of the application by James Croucher for relief, and an order for payment of the said sum of 21. 2s. 9d., made the 27th of March, 1840, and signed with the initials of James Brooks, the clerk to the guardians of the said union. I also produce the weekly out-door relief list of my district of the said Hartley Wintney Union, commencing the 25th of December, 1838, and ending the 24th of June, 1840. This book contains an entry, for the quarter ending June the 24th, 1840, of the payment to James Croucher, his wife, and eight children, of the said sum of 27. 2s. 9d. for the amount of relief given by the said George Woods to the said James Croucher and his family, in a letter addressed to Mr. Woodward by mistake for Mr. Woods, relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, dated the 14th of May, 1840. The relief so given to the said James Croucher is charged in the said out-door relief list to the said parish of Crondall.'

"SAMUEL ANDREWS, (R. O.)."

1847.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of
CRONDALL.

1847.

The QUEEN

v.

Inhabitants of
CRONDALL.

Copy of the letter referred to by Samuel Andrews in his examination:

"Mr. Samuel Andrews, relieving officer, Odiham, Hants.

"Sir,-Inclosed you will find the particulars of James Croucher and his family; also the amount of relief given to him and his family during his illness. He is gone to his work to-day, and, I hope, will be able to continue to do so; if not, I will pay him according to the direction of our board, as I have hitherto done, and acquaint you of it. I will thank you to remit the money to me as early as convenient. By so doing, you will much oblige, yours respectfully, "GEO. WOODS, (R. O.)

"Relief given to James Croucher, 21. 2s. 9d.”

George Woods, on his oath, saith: "I was relieving officer of the Hambledon Union, in the county of Surrey, in 1839 and 1840. Elstead parish forms part of this union. In the latter part of 1839, or the beginning of 1840, I was applied to by Martha Croucher to relieve her husband James Croucher, who, she said, was ill; I went to see him, and gave him temporary relief. He was at this time living in the parish of Elstead, in the county of Surrey. James Croucher stated that Crondall, in the county of Hants, was his parish. I reported the circumstance to the board of guardians of the Hambledon Union the next board day. I was afterwards ordered by the board of guardians of the Hambledon Union to relieve the pauper, James Croucher, during his illness, and charge such relief to Crondall parish in the Hartley Wintney Union, Hants. I accordingly relieved the said James Croucher from time to time during his illness, and sent an account of such relief in a letter to Mr. Andrews, of Odiham, one of the relieving officers of