1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of stated on the face of the order to be by a stranger, the order would be bad; but that is not so here. The question is, whether the complaint is not made by the BEDINGHAM. authority of all the parish officers, though made only in the name of one. One officer may be authorised to make the complaint for the rest-here he has been so authorised, and the answer to the objection is complete. Then, with respect to the other question, whether the sessions ought to have admitted the appellants to give the evidence objected to, that is to say, the explanatory evidence to shew that it was by mistake that relief was given to the pauper: I think that the sessions were right upon this point. The examination of the pauper contains evidence of a distinct settlement gained by him in the appellant parish by hiring and service. When the parties went before the sessions, the respondents did not attempt to shew that settlement, but relied entirely upon the undisputed fact of relief as evidence of it. The party who resisted the settlement had surely a right to resist the evidence of it by the proof which was here admitted, and I am of opinion that the ground of appeal was sufficient to let in that evidence. WIGHTMAN, J.-The statute of 13 & 14 Car. 2 does not require a complaint in writing. The fact, that the complaint is in the name of one of the overseers only, cannot be considered as conclusively shewing that it is made by him alone; and here there was proof that he acted by the authority of the rest. The evidence objected to was properly admitted, although the notice of appeal in terms states that the relief was given by mistake. The objection to the evidence might have great weight, if the giving relief would of itself confer a settlement; but it does not confer a settlement, it only amounts to evidence of the existence of one. It is said by Mr. Archbold, that the notice of appeal ought to 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of deny, or confess and avoid, the grounds of the settlement. Suppose, in this case, it had been stated in the examination that the pauper had been relieved by the appellant, while residing in the respondent parish, with- BEDINGHAM. out stating the nature of his settlement there: the appellants could not deny a specific settlement, because none was stated, but they could deny any settlement being gained, and then go into evidence of the mistake. Where, therefore, the giving of relief is put forward as shewing a settlement, the ground of settlement is confessed and avoided when it is shewn that the relief, if given, was given in mistake. Relief, shewn to be so given, would not be evidence of settlement. Order of sessions confirmed. ON THE QUEEN v. The Inhabitants of CHISWICK. an appeal against an order of a justice, (Mr. Hardwicke, a police magistrate &c.), by which Henry Adams and his family were removed from the parish of St. Giles in the Fields to the parish of Chiswick, both in the county of Middlesex, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case. The settlement relied on by the respondents was one gained by the pauper in 1827, in the appellant parish, by apprenticeship to one George Clarke, under stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 139. by the parish master. The officers and the order and al The examinations, after stating the chargeability of the pauper, went on to state that an indenture, under the hands and seals of the churchwardens and overseers of St. Giles', of the one part, and of George Clarke, of the other part, reciting the order and allowance thereof recited in the lowance of the justices at the binding were indenture, but were not other wise proved than by the above proof of the execution of the indenture. The Court quashed the order of removal, on the ground that it did not appear on the face of the examinations that the order and allowance required by the statute had been made by the justices. 1844. THE QUEEN V. Inhabitants of by two justices, was produced before the removing magistrate, and the signatures of the churchwardens and overseers, as well as of the attesting witness to the indenture, duly proved. The making of the order for binding, and the allowance of the indenture by the justices, were not proved before the removing magistrate, otherwise than by proof of the due execution of the indenture, by the recitals in the indenture, by the production of the order and allowance of the justices, and by proof of the handwriting of the attesting witness, as above mentioned. Copies of the examinations, of the order of removal, and notice of chargeability were duly served. The material ground of appeal was as follows (a):— That the examinations upon which the said order was founded are bad and insufficient, inasmuch as the pauper, Henry Adams, was a parish apprentice, and it does not appear on the face of the said examinations. (a) Following the words of stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, s. 1, which enacts, "that, before any child shall be bound apprentice by the overseers of the poor of any parish, township, or place, such child shall be carried before two justices of the peace of the county, riding, division, or place wherein such parish, township, or place shall be situate, who shall inquire into the propriety of binding such child apprentice to the person or persons to whom it shall be proposed by such overseers to bind such child."...."And if such justices shall, upon such examination and inquiry, think fit person or persons to whom such child may be properly bound as apprentice; and shall thereupon order that the overseer or overseers of the place to which such child shall belong shall be at liberty to bind such child apprentice accordingly; which order shall be delivered to such overseer or overseers as the warrant for binding such child apprentice as aforesaid, and such order shall be referred to by the date thereof, and the names of the said justices in the indenture of apprenticeship of such child; and after such order shall have been made, such justices shall sign their allowance of such indenture of apprenticeship before the same shall be executed by any of the other parties thereto." that the said Henry Adams was, before he was bound apprentice, carried before two of the justices of the peace of the county, riding, division, or place wherein the said parish of St. Giles was situate, who might inquire into the propriety of binding him out apprentice; nor that any order of justices had been made declaring the said George Clarke to be a fit person to whom the pauper might properly be bound apprentice; nor that any order was made by the justices that the overseers of the place to which such child belonged should be at liberty to bind such child apprentice accordingly; nor (supposing such an order to have been duly made) that the justices making such order signed their allowance of the indenture according to the directions of the statute in such case made and provided. The sessions were of opinion that the execution of the indenture had been duly proved before the removing magistrate, and that there was no necessity for noticing in the examinations that such order had been made, or such allowance of the indenture obtained, and thereupon confirmed the order. The indenture, order, and allow ance were produced before the justices, and form part of the case. The opinion of this Court was requested as to whether the examinations were sufficient whereon to ground the order of removal, and whether any objection, sufficient to invalidate the same, was raised by the ground of appeal. Adolphus, in support of the order of sessions.-The only objection here made is, that it does not appear on the face of the examinations that the pauper was carried before two justices, before he was bound apprentice, for their allowance. That, however, is immaterial. The subscribing witness to the indenture being dead, it was sufficient to prove his signature; and then the indenture, which recites the allowance by the justices, being proved, nothing further was necessary. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of Prendergast, contrà.-This was a parish binding under stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, which requires that a child shall be taken before two justices, who are to make an CHISWICK. Order, and by whom the indentures are to be allowed. No settlement is to be gained unless these requisites are complied with. The order and allowance were not proved before the magistrates; it is true they appear in the indenture, but they ought to be proved in the same way as the execution of the indenture is proved. magistrate's order does not prove itself, and the indenture would be invalid without the order and allowance. In Nolan (a) it is laid down, that, in the case of parish apprentices, the assent of two justices is necessary, and, if given in writing, the signature must be proved in the same manner, and subject to the same rules, as the execution of the indentures. The Lord DENMAN, C. J.-We must see that this is a good objection. PATTESON, WILLIAMS, and WIGHTMAN, JJ., con curred. Orders quashed. (a) Vol. 1, p. 597. |