1845. The QUEEN v. WOLLATTS. It is said that the order is bad, because it does not state that the paupers came into the parish of St. Giles animo morandi, or anything equivalent to that. It is true that the common form of orders of removal is, that a pauper "has come to inhabit and has become chargeable;" but the expressions used here are equally strong to exclude the supposition either that the paupers were relieved as casual poor, or were out of the parish at the time the order was made. [Coleridge, J.-Then you rely on the word "intrude."] In Rex v. Binegar (a), cited in the judgment in Regina v. Rotherham (b), the same word was used, and there it was held that inhabitancy was sufficiently shewn. [Coleridge, J.-The words endeavouring there to settle as inhabitants thereof" were added in that case.] 66 Pashley, contrà, was stopped by the Court. Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We cannot give the construction contended for to the word "intrude," and the objection must prevail. As to the first point, the rule in Salkeld does not apply; that relates to a case where a party in whose favour an order is made seeks to bring it up by certiorari, which would prevent the privilege of appealing. WILLIAMS, COLERIDGE, and WIGHTMAN, Js., con curred. Rule absolute. (a) 7 East, 377. (b) 3 Q. B. R. 789. 1845. The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of BRIGHTHELMSTONE. ON appeal against an order of two justices, dated the The examina 10th of February, 1844, for the removal of John Guill, his wife, and six children, from the parish of Brighthelmstone, to the parish of Littlehampton, both in the county of Sussex, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: The pauper, John Guill, was born on the 19th of April, 1804, and became emancipated by marriage on the 28th of November, 1823; he had gained no settlement in his own right, and was the legitimate son of Thomas Guill. The examination of Thomas Guill (amongst other things) stated as follows:-"The pauper, John Guill, is my son, born in lawful wedlock. He was forty years of age on the 19th of April last. I was legally removed from the parish of New Shoreham, five years ago last 26th of December, by Mr. Hillwood, one of the parish officers of New Shoreham, to the parish of Littlehampton, by an order of two of her Majesty's then justices of the peace acting in and for the county of Sussex, and I was duly delivered with the order to the overseers of the said parish of Littlehampton, and the said order has not been appealed against. I gained my legal settlement in the said parish of Littlehampton by apprenticeship to Jeremiah Scarvell, when I was about eighteen years of age, and I am now seventy-four years of age. I have never gained any settlement subsequent to my said apprenticeship." The several facts deposed to by the said Thomas Guill are, for the purposes of this case, admitted by the appellants. tion on which an order of re made stated that the father of the pauper was removed to under an order, moval was L., in 1838, which was un. appealed against, founded on a settle ment gained there by him in 1788 by apprenticeship, and that he had gained no sub sequent settle ment; that the son was born in emancipated in 1804, and 1823, and had gained no settlement for him self:- Held sufficient son's settle. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of The grounds of appeal stated, that there was no legal or sufficient evidence shewing that Thomas Guill was settled in the parish of Littlehampton at the time of BRIGHTHELM- the emancipation of his son John Guill, in November, 1823; and, further, that there was no legal or sufficient evidence of any settlement of Thomas Guill in the appellant parish, by apprenticeship or otherwise. STONE. The question for the opinion of this Court is, whether sufficient appears on the face of the above examination (the facts therein being admitted) to entitle the said John Guill to a derivative settlement in the appellant parish; if so, the order of removal to be confirmed, otherwise to be quashed. Creasy, in support of the order of sessions.-The examinations do not disclose sufficient evidence of a derivative settlement of the pauper. Rex v. Catterall (a) will be relied on by the other side, but the facts of that case do not bear out the general proposition there laid down, "that an order of removal of a father confirmed is conclusive as to the settlement of the son, although the son be not named in the order, and be emancipated at the time of making it, if he have not acquired any settlement in his own right;" but only, that, there having been an adjudication as to the settlement of the father, it could not be disputed in the case of his son claiming a derivative settlement from him. In Rex v. Yeoveley (b), and Regina v. Lilleshall (c), it did not appear that the son was emancipated. In 1823, this pauper was emancipated, and he then became a stranger to his father's family, and his settlement would be no longer affected by the settlement of his father. [Coleridge, J.-It must be taken, that the father had a settlement at the time of his removal, and in his examination he distinctly nega (a) 6 M. & S. 83. (b) 8 A. & E. 806. (c) Antè, Vol. 1, p. 576. 1845. The QUEEN v. Inhabitants of tives the acquisition of any subsequent settlement.] The evidence is not conclusive as to the settlement of the pauper, and the sufficiency of the evidence is a question for the decision of the sessions, which this Court BRIghthelmwill not review unless it clearly appears to have been wrong: Rex v. Edwinstowe (a), Rex v. Yarwell (b), and Regina v. Charlbury and Walcot (c). Pashley and J. Johnson, contrà, were not heard. Lord DENMAN, C. J.-There is no doubt about this case. The order of removal of the father has been acquiesced in, and was primâ facie evidence of settlement, on which the sessions were bound to act in the case of the son, unless something was shewn to the contrary. PATTESON and WILLIAMS, Js., concurred. COLERIDGE, J.-One fact is admitted, that no settlement has been gained subsequent to that of the father by apprenticeship; and, therefore, as it is clear that the father did gain a settlement by apprenticeship in the appellant parish, and had that settlement up to the time of the order for his removal, that is, before and after the emancipation of the son, who never gained a settlement for himself, I do not see how the sessions could resist the inference. Order of sessions quashed. (a) 8 B. & C. 671. (b) 9 B. & C. 894. (c) 3 Q. B. R. 378. STONE. 1845. In 1769, A. inclosed a piece of land from the waste, and built a cottage on it, paying the yearly sum of 2s. 6d. to the lord of the manor, and upon a further inclosure of land for a gar den that pay. ment was increased to 38. A. continued in possession of the cottage and garden till his death in 1829, and was succeeded by his son, who continued to occupy the same premises : The QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of CUDDINGTON. ON appeal against an order of two justices of the county of Chester, dated the 1st of June, 1844, whereby the township of Cuddington was adjudged to be the place of the last legal settlement of one William Tomlinson, a pauper lunatic, and the overseers of that township were ordered to pay certain sums of money, as therein mentioned, for the removal of the said pauper to the County Lunatic Asylum, and for his maintenance therein, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case : The grandfather of the pauper, some time previous to the year 1769, had inclosed a piece of ground from the waste lands in the township of Cuddington, belonging to the lord of the manor, and had built a cottage thereon, in which he continued to reside till his death, in the year 1828 or 1829. It appeared, by the production of Held, that this receipts, which were proved by the mother of the pauper to have been found amongst her husband's father's papers at his death, that for some time a yearly rent of 2s. 6d. was paid to the lord of the manor, William Drake, Esq., which, on a further inclosure of land for a garden, had been increased to 3s.; 6d. being added for the garden. One of the earlier receipts so produced was as follows: payment could quired by estate. "September 26th, 1769. Received of James Tomlinson the sum of 2s. 6d., being a year's cottage rent due to William Drake, Esq., at Lady-day next. "Thomas Roylance." It was also proved by the mother of the pauper that her husband was the only son and heir-at-law of the grandfather, after whose death, about the year 1829, |