« PreviousContinue »
Before we consider the evidence particularly, it may be well to attend to the following general observations : The paiiper
is a competent witness for either party; and (according to the practice of some courts of quarter sessions) the appellants are bound to produce him.
A parishioner is a competent witness for or against his parish, whether rated or holding otice or not, and whether maintained by the parish or not; and this, in almost
all cases (h).
(d) 54 Geo. 3. c. 170. s. 9.
Neither hearsay evidence of the declaration of the pau. 1, per, nor the exparte exainiuation of him upon oath,
Laken in writing by the magistrates, relative to his settlement, are almissible evidence of such settlement, although the pauper die or abscond before the appeal (í). SOR, Y. Ferry Frystone, 2 East, 54. ii. 234. R. v. Abergwilly, 2 East, e di, 235, R. v. Nuncham Courtney, 1 East, 373. ii. 236, and see R. v!
aby Eriswell, 3 T. R. 707. ii. 237. R. v. St. Sepulchre's, 2 Bott, 362. ii. 238.
But in the case of a soldier, having a wife or child, any justice of the peace may suminon hiin before him, in the
place where he is billetted, and take his examination in bels writing, upon oath, touching the place of his last legal
settlement; and such justice shall give an attested copy bijusie of such exaunination to the person so examined, to be by
bim delivered to his commanding officer; which said ex-
on oath of any person having a wife or child, who shall
In all other cases, the same rules of evidence must be observed upon the trial of an appeal, as in other cases (n).
(a) See R. v. Rawden, 8 B. & C. 708. ii. 243.
Evidence that a pauper is settled in A., is prima facie evidence that it was his last legal settlement.
The evidence on the part of the appellant and respondent, is much the same, the latter proving that the pauper was legally settled in the appellant parish, the former that he was not so settled, or (which is the same thing) that he was subsequently settled elsewhere. This is proved on both sides, either by admissions, positive or implied, or by direct evidence of the settlement; and in this order, we shall now consider the evidence necessary upon an appeal.
I. By Admissions. 1. Certificates : A certificate is a written acknowledg. ment by the churchwardens and overseers, that a particular person is legally settled in their parish (6). See the form, infra (2).
(0) See R. v. St. Ives, 2 Sess. Ca. 153. ii. 244. R. v. Helperton, Burr. s. C. 227. ii. 245.
It must be under the hands and seals of the church.
(2) Certificate and Allowance. To the Churchwardens and Over
in the county of - do seers of the Poor of the Parish of hereby certify, own, and acknow.
in the County of - ledge that A. L., yeuman, is an We, the church wardens and over. inhabitant legally settled in our seers of the poor of the parish of parish of aforesaid. In wit
wardens and overseers of the poor of the certifying parish, or the inajor part of them (p); or, where a parish contains many townships, &c. each maintaining its own poor, then under the hands and seals of the overseers of the township, and the persons acting as churchwardens of the same, (although really sworn in as churchwardens of the entire parish,) or the major part of them (q); or under the bands and seals of two persons, acting or purporting to act in the double capacity of church wardens and overseers (r); or under the hands and seals of the overseers only, where there are no church wardens (s).
& 2 : c. 12. s. 3. R. v. Tamworth, Burr. S. C. 770. ii. 246. R. v. Margam, I T. R. 775. ii. 247. R. v. Wymondham, 6 T. R. 552. ii. 248. R. v. Whitchurch, 7 B. & C. 573. ii. 249. R. v. Austrey, I Phil. Ev. 453. ii. 250. R. v. Catesby, 2 B. & C. 814. ii. 251. R. v. St. Margaret, Leicester, 8 East, 332. ii. 252. R. v. Clifton, 2 East, 168. ii. 253.
(9) 54 Geo. 3. c. 107. s. 1, 2. See R. v. Samborn, 8 T. R. 609. ii, 254. () 51 Geo. 3. c. 80. s. I. (6) 8 & 9 W.3. c. 30. s. l.
It must be attested by two or more credible witnesses (1), one of whom shall make oath, before the justices who allow the certificate, that the overseers, &c. signed and sealed the same in his presence; and this oath being certified by the justices upon such certificate, the certificate shall be received in evidence without further proof (u).
(1) 8 & 9 W.3. c. 30. s. 1. See R. v. Boston, 1 Str. 94. ii. 255. Barleycroft v. Coleoverton, Str. 402. ii. 256. R. v. Ashton Keynes, Burr. S. C. 725. ii. 257.
(u) 3 Geo. 2. c. 29. s. 8. See R. v. Farringdon, 2 T. R. 466. ii. 258. R. v. St. Maurice, Burr. S.C. 296. ii. 25 R. v. Ryton, 5 T. R. 259. ii. 260. R. v. Debenham, 2 B. & A. 185. ii. 261. R. v. Netherthong, 2 M. & S. 337. ii. 262. R. v. Stanley cum Wrenthorpe, 15 East, 350. ij. 263.
ners whereof we have hereunto set of in the year of our Lord our hands and seals, the day
A. B:} Churchwardens.
E:H:} Overseers of the Poor. We, J. P. and K. P., esquires, of aforesaid, whose names two of his majesty's justices of the and seals are hereunto subscribed peace in and for the said county of and set, severally sign and seal the
do allow of the above-writ. same; and that the names of A.W. ten certificate. And we do alsu cer. and B. W., who are the witnesses tify, that A. W., une of the wit- attesting the said certificate, are nesses who attested the same, hath respectively of their own proper this day made oath before us, the hands' writing. said justices, that he, the said A. Given under our hands, this w. did see the church wardens and day of overseers of the poor of the parish
It must be allowed by two justices of the county, &c. in which the certifying parish is situate (~).
(v) 8 & 9 W. 3. c. 30. s. 1. See R. v. Wootun, St. Lawrence, Burr. s. C. 581. ij. 264.
It must be directed to the church wardens and over. seers of the parish in which the party is going to reside (w); and must contain an acknowledgment that the
persons therein mentioned, are inhabitants legally settled in the certifying parish (w).
(w) See R. v. St. Nicholas in Harwich, Burr. S. C. 171. ij. 265. R. v. Lillington, 1 East, 438. ii. 266.
(16) See 8 & 9W.3. c. 30. s. l. 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12. s. 3. And see R. v. St. Mary, Westport, 3 T. R. 44. ii. 63.
This certificate is an admission by the parish granting it, that the pauper at the tiine was legally settled in that parish, (whether the pauper deliver the certificate before removal or not (y), and of all the other facts stated in it (2). But it is conclusive only as between the certifying parish, and the parish to which the certificate is directed (a); nor does it in any manner prevent the certifying parish froin proving a subsequent settlement in a third parish (6).
(y) R. v. Buckingham, Cald. 64. ii. 267. See R. v. Wensley, 5 T. R. 154. ii. 268.
(2) See New Windsor v. White Waltham, Str. 186. ii, 269. R. v. Headcorn, Burr. S. C. 253. ii 270. R. v. Ipsley, Burr. S. C. 650. ii. 271. R. v. Tostock, 2 Butt, 581. ii. 272. And see R. v. Mathon, 7 T. R. 362, ii, 273. R, v. Ullesthorpe, 8 T. R. 465. ii. 274.
(a) All Saints v. St. Giles, 2 Salk. 530. ii. 275. R. v. Lubbenham, 4T. R. 25). ii. 276. R. v. Bishopside, Burr. S. C. 381. ii. 277.
(6) Harrison v. Lewis, 3 Salk. 253. ii. 278. R. v. Petham, 2 Str. 1147. ii. 279. R. v. Horsley, Burr. S. C. 385. ii. 280.
And it is an admission, not only that the pauper was at the time settled in the certifying parish, but that it continued to be his place of settlement until he gained some other settlement, or the certificate was otherwise discharged (c). And here it may be necessary to observe, that although a certificate-inan may gain a settlement in
(c) See R. v. Warblington, IT. R. 241. ii. 281. R. v. Sudbury, Burr. S. C. 373. ii. 282, R. v. Taunton St. Mary Magdalen, Burr. S. (. 402. ii. 283. R. v. Framptou-upon-Severn, Doug. 417. ii. 284. R. v. Keel, Cald. 144. ii. 285. R. v. St. Michael's in Coventry, 5 T. R. 524. ii. 286. R. v. Spotland, Burr. S.C. 527. ii. 287. R. v. Newington, I T. R. 354, 11.208. R. v. Wymondham, 6 T. R. 552. ii. 248. R. v, Birdham, 2 Bott, 607. 11. 289. R. v. St. Peter in Derby, IT.R. 218. ii. 290. R. v. Ingworth, 8 T. R. 339. ii. 29). R. v. Findern, 2 Bott, 582. 605. ii. 292. R. v. Heath, 5 T. R. 583. ii. 293. R. v. Morley, 2 M. and $. 417. ii, 294.
a third parish (d), he cannot gain a settlement in the parish to which the certificate is directed (e), by any act of his own (f), except by renting a tenement of the annual value of 101.(g), or by executing an annual office (h); nor can his yearly servant or apprentice'i).
(d) See R, v. Petham, 2 Str, 1147. ii. 279. Harrison v. Lewis, 3 Salk. 253. ii. 278. R. v. Horsley, Burr. S. C. 385. ii. 280. (e) 13 & 14 Car.2 c. 12, s. 3. (1) R. v. Great Driffield, 8 B. and C. 684. ii. 295. See Burclear v. Eastwoodhay, 1 Str. 163; Burr. S. C. 221. ii. 296. Ivinghoe v. Stonebridge, I Str. 266. 11. 297. R. v. Stanfield, Burr. S. C. 205. ii. 135. R. v. Deddington, Str. 1193, ii. 298. R. v. Cold Ashton, Burr. S. C. 444. ii. 299. R. v. Shensione, Burr. S. C. 468. ii. 300. R. v. Wivelingham, Doug. 767. ii. 801. R. v. Stapleford, 2 Bott, 114. ii. 302. (g) 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11. See R. v. Findern, 2 Bott, 582. 605. ii. 292.
(h) 9 & 10 W.3. c. ll. See R. v. St. Mary, Berkhamstead, 2 Str. 942. ii. 303. R. v. Melburne, Burr. $. C. 244. ii. 304.
( 12 Anne, st. 1. c. 18. s. 2. And see R. v. Hinkley, 4T. R. 371. ii. 305.
The certificate extends, not only to the pauper and his wife (k), but to his children (whether born before or after it (l)), so long as they continue a part of his family (m); or if the children be named in the certificate, they will continue under its operation, even after they
are emancipated, and become heads of families (n). "But it does not extend to a child intentionally omitted in it (o); and the parties may in other respects narrow the extent of it. (k) See R. v. Hampton, 5 T. R. 266. ii. 306.
() R. v. Sherborne, Burr. S. C. 182. ii. 307. R. v. Bray, Burr. S. C. 259. ii. 808. R. v. Letchdale, Burr. S. C. 380. ii. 309.
(m) R. v. Darlington, 4 T. R. 797. ii. 310. R. v. Bugden, 1 Wils. 183. ii. 311. R. v. Thwaites, 1 M. & S. 669. ii. 312. R. v. Mortlake, 6 East, 396. ii. 313. R. v. Alfreton, 7 T. R. 471. ii. 314. And see Wingham v. Sellinge, Burr. S. C. 225, ii. 471.
() R. v. Testerton, 5 T. R. 258. ii. 315. See R. v. Batheaston, 8T. R. 446. ii. 316. But see R. v. Leek Wootton, 16 East, 118. ii. 317.
(0) R. v. Storrington, 7 T. R. 133. ii. 318.
As to the removal of certificate-men, see 8 & 9 W.3. c. 30. s. 1(p).
(D) And see 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12. 8. 3. R. v. Hayder, 2 Bott, 566. ii. 48. Little Kire v. Woudfall, 2 Salk. 530. ii. 319. R. v. St. Martin at Oak, 16 East, 303. ij. 55.
2. Relief: Relieving the pauper or his family, resident in another parish, is evidence (though not conclusive) of a settlement in that parish which gives the relief (9). (9) R. v. Wakefield, 5 East, 335. ii. 320. R. v. Stanley,cum Wrenthorpe, 15 East, 350. ii. 263. Ř. v. Edwinstowe, 8 B. & C. 671.
But relieving a pauper resident in the parish, is no evi