Page images


Court thought it unreasonable, that several persons in a parish should be Thirteenthly, of charged, and not all, but that the words of the act are very strong : and did rate for taxing not quash the order for this objection.

others in aid. It has been decided also, that it should appear by the order that the place on which the rate is made is not within the parish in aid of which it is assessed, and that this is necessary, although the names of both appear on the face of the order and are different. S. C. 1 Nol. P. L. 246.

But in Rex v. St. Helen's, 1 Nol. P. L. 246, (n.) The above was cited to this point, when Lord Ellenborough, C. J., observed that the diversity of name imports diversity of place, unless the contrary be shewn. And see Anon. Fol 25, ante, 160.

Within the Hundred.] Boroughfen v. St. Jones, Fol. 27, 31 ; 1 Bott, it must appear in 402; 1 Nol. P. L. 245, 246. Motion to quash an order of two justices; parish is within for that it doth not appear upon the order, that the parish which is charged the same hunto aid the parish that is not able to maintain its own poor, is within the same hundred. And quashed by the whole Court.

St. Benedict v. St.Peter's, Fol. 31 ; 1 Bott, 409; 1 Nol. P. L. 246, 247; 11 Mod. 269. Motion to quash an order of two justices, which was made to assess the parishes of St. Stephen and St. Mary Magdalen, in Norwich, in aid of the parish of St. Benedict, which was not able to maintain its own poor. Objection: These parishes are not in the same hundred; they are in the county of the city of Norwich where there is no hundred, so the justices have no jurisdiction, though the sessions have in such case. Order quashed.

Rer v. The Tithing of Milland, 1 Burr. 576; 1 Bott, 354; 1 Nol. P. L. Any division 242. Two justices tax the inhabitants of the tithing of Milland in aid of which is equiva. the parish of St. Peter's Cheesehill, in the same county. The sessions con- is within the firm the order, setting forth that the tithing of Milland, and the parish of equity of the St. Peter's Cheesehill, both lie in the same liberty of the soke where the said parish lies. On referring it back to the sessions to be more particularly stated, it appeared (substantially) to be a hundred, though called by another name. And the Court held, they were not restrained to the particular word hundred, but it is sufficient if it be signified by any word equivalent. And the orders were affirmed.

In the case of Rex v. T. Holbeche, Esq. and another, 4 T. R. 778; Justices cannot i Bott, 419; 1 Nol. P. L. 243. It was determined, that county justices rate in aid of a. cannot rate a parish within their jurisdiction in aid of another parish, lying jurisdiction. within a borough which has an exclusive jurisdiction.

As the said Justices shall think fit.] Rex v. St. Mary's in Marlborough, The order must 2 Stra. 700; 1 Bott, 406; 1 Nol. P. L. 250. An order was made for a

limited. neighbouring parish to contribute so long as we the said justices shall think fit.-But by the Court: It must be quashed; for the discretion that is left in the justices, is not to make a perpetual order, which this would be.

Rex v. Knightly, Comb. 309; 1 Bott, 399 ; 1 Nol. P. L. 245. A sum The sum may be in gross was taxed upon a neighbouring parish for a whole

which was

imposed in gross objected to as unreasonable, because their ability may change ; nevertheless the order was confirmed.

Rer v. Telscombe, 1 Stra. 314; 1 Bott, 403; 1 Nol. P. L. 245. By the The order must Court: The order for the contributory parish to make a rate at 6d. in the be to raise a sum

certain. pound is ill for uncertainty ; it should have been to raise such a sum certain. Quashed.

Case of the parish of St. Peter and Paul in Marlborough, 2 Stra. 1114; The sum may be 1 Bott, 406; 1 Nol. P. L. 244. Two justices, reciting the inability of the parish of St. Mary to maintain its own poor, order the parish of St. Peter and St. Paul to contribute 601. for the maintenance of the poor of the other parish : An objection being made to their ordering such a gross sum, the Court held it in that respect to be well.

And by stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 3, if the said hundred shall not be


be for a time

for a year.

in gross.

out of the hun.

in the hundred


Thirteenthly, Of thought by the said justices able and fit to relieve the said several parishes rate for taring not able to provide for themselves as aforesaid ; then the justices at their others in aid.

general quarter sessions, or the greater number of them, shall rate and County contri.

assess, as aforesaid, any other of other parishes, or out of any parish within butory.

the county, &c. The sessions may

Rex v. Percivall, 1 Stra. 56; 1 Bott, 413; 1 Nol. P. L. 249. Order of charge parishes

sessions, reciting that the parish is not able to maintain its own poor, nor any dred, although

other parish within the hundred to contribute, therefore the justices at the two justices have sessions tax other parishes in another hundred within the same county. It not adjudged that the parishes with

was moved to quash it, and insisted that the statute gives no authority to

the sessions to charge people out of the hundred, till two justices have enare unable to con- quired whether any parish in the hundred can contribute the first appli

cation to be to two justices, and the second to the sessions.—Parket, C.J. I do not see to what purpose it would be, for the two justices to make an order, only to adjudge that no parish within the hundred is able to contribute, We will presume the sessions is satisfied of that, and if the two justices should make such an adjudication, yet the sessions must enquire into the truth of it; and if no order appear which charges any parish within the hundred, it is a sufficient ground for the sessions to act. If the two justices had charged any parish within the hundred, that would have stopped the sessions from proceeding; and the sufficiency of the hundred depends on this, whether two justices have ever charged the hundred,-If the said hundred shall not be thought by the said justices able,—that is, if the two justices do not adjudge it so. If two justices should adjudge the hundred not able, yet, if other two justices adjudge the contrary, their charge would be good, and the sessions be ousted of their jurisdiction, notwithstanding the first adjudication.--Eyre, J. Here are two jurisdictions, that of the two justices and that of the sessions, and both are original jurisdictions. They are different in all respects, for the two justices have no power out of the hundred, nor the sessions within it. There need be no appeal from any adjudi. cation of two justices, for that would be to appeal from a nullity. And the order was confirmed.

And in Rex v. Eastchurch, 1 Bott, 410; 1 Nol. P. L. 248. It was decided by Holt, C. J., that the sessions cannot make an original order on a parish within the hundred.

III. Of the Relief and Ordering of the Poor. The 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, enacts, that the overseers, or the greater part of The general rule them, shall take order from time to time, by and with the consent of two or and lau. more such justices of peace as is aforesaid, for setting to work the children of all such whose parents shall not, by the said churchwardens and overseers, or the greater part of them, be thought able to keep and maintain their children ; and also for setting to work all such persons, married or unmarried, having no means to maintain them, as use no ordinary and daily trade of life to get their living by; and also to raise weekly or otherwise, by taxation of every inhabitant, parson, vicar, and other and of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes impropriate, propriations of tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods, in the said parish, in such competent sum and sums of money as they shall think fit, a convenient stock of fax, hemp, wool, thread, iron, and other necessary ware and stuff

, to set the poor on work, and also competent sums of money for and towards the necessary relief of the lame, impotent, old, blind, and such other among them being poor and not able to work, and also for the putting out of such children to be apprentices, to be gathered out of the same parish, according to the ability of the same parish; and to do and execute all other things, as well for the disposing of the said stock as otherwise, concerning the premises as to them shall seem convenient.

This statute and subsequent enactments regulate the relief and ordering of the poor. It is the duty of every overseer when a person requiring immediate relief applies for it, to afford the same instantly out of the parish funds, without regard to any question whether he is legally settled in the parish, or has other ultimate sources of support; and thereupon, as to future and comtinuing support, in cases of doubt, to refer the question as to future relief to magistrates for their order and direction. This duty is clear from the decisions relative to casual poor, post, No. 8. On the other hand, an overseer should not, in cases of doubt whether a party is legally settled in his parish, relieve him, without first obtaining an order of a justice, except in cases of sudden and emergent occasion.

This subject may be classed under eight distinct heads; as,
Firstly, Of the Liability of Parents and Children to maintain each other.
Secondly, Of the Order of Maintenance.
Thirdly, Of Persons Deserting or Absent from their Families.
Fourthly. Of the Mode of Relieving and Ordering the Poor, and herein of

Relief to Debtors in Gaols, not being county gaols.
Fifthly, Of the Regulation of Parish Vestries under stats. 58 Geo. III. c. 69,

and 59 Geo. III. c. 85.
Sirthly, Of Select Vestries under authority of stat. 59 Geo. III. c. 12.
Serenthly, Of Incorporated Districts.
Eightly, Of Casual Poor. (a)

(First)-Of the Liability of Parents and Children to maintain

each other.(b) 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7; 7 Jac. I. c. 4, s. 8; 5 Geo. I. c. 8; 59 Geo. III. c.

First, Of com12, s. 31, 32, 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, s. 3; 11 Geo. IV. c. 10, s. 2.

pelling parents Stat. 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7, enacts, “ that the father and grandfather, and the and children of mother and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame, poor persons to

maintain each

other. (a) This head was differently treated in not be disputed. See the doctrine, 1 the former editions, but the editor thinks Bla. Com. 447. Butindependently of the it proper here to insert it.

express enactment in the 43 Eliz., c. 2, (b) The natural obligation upon such and other subsequent statutes, there is near relatives as parent and child can. no legal obligation on a parent to main

First, Of com- and impotent person, or other poor person not able to work, being of a suffipelling parents, cient ability, shall, at their own charges, relieve and maintain every such &c.

poor person in that manner, and according to that rate, as by the justices of peace of that county where such sufficient persons dwell, or the greater

number of them, at their general quarter sessions, shall be assessed; upon pelling the relief pain that every one of them shall forfeit twenty shillings for every month of poor persons by their parents

which they shall fail therein."

Sect. 11. “ Which penalty shall go and be employed to the use of the poor of the same parish, and towards a stock and habitation for them, and other necessary uses and relief, as before in this act are mentioned and expressed;

The statute 43
Eliz., c. 2, com-

or children.

tain his child, or on a child to relieve his dence, had ordered regimentals and other
parent; and therefore a third person, who articles suitable to his equipment for the
may afford such relief, even from absolute East Indies. If it had appeared in evi-
want, cannot sue the parent for a reason- dence, that the defendant had supplied
able remuneration, unless he expressly his son with money for this purpose, or
or impliedly contracted to pay. See per that he had ordered these articles to be
Le Blanc, J., 4 East, 84 ; Sir T. Raym. furnished elsewhere, either of those
260, margin; Palmer, 559; 2 Stark, 521, “ circumstances,” the learned judge
Whereas, as we have seen in the case of observed, “ might have rebutted the
husband and wife, the former may, in presumption of any authority from the
some cases, be sued for necessaries pro- defendant to order them from the plain-
vided for the latter, even in defiance of tiff: nothing, however, of this nature
the husband's injunctions not to supply had been proved, and since the ar-
them. The common law considered ticles were necessary for the son, and
moral duties of this nature like others of suitable to that situation in which the
imperfect obligation, as better left in defendant had placed him, it was for the
their performance to the impulse of na- jury to say whether they were not satisfied
ture. However a parent may, under that an authority had been given by the
circumstances, be indicted at common defendant." The jury found in the
law for not supplying an infant child affirmative. 2 Stark. Rep. 521.
with necessaries. Russell & R. C. C. So where a man marries a widow who
20, 2 Camp. 650; and very slight cir- has children by her former husband,
cumstances will suffice to justify a jury who are received by the second husband
in finding a contract on the part of the into, and held out by him to the world

as forming part of his own family, be will
In a late case, where a parent was be liable to pay third persons for neces-
sought to be charged for regimentals fur- saries furnished for them. Per Lord El.
nished to his son, the Lord Chief Justice lenborough, 4 East, 82.
left it as a question for the jury to con- But where a parent allows his child a
sider whether they could infer that the reasonable sum for his expences, he will
order was given by the assent and with not be liable, even for necessaries or-
the authority of the father. He said, that dered by such child. 2 Esp. Rep. 471.
“a father would not be bound by the And where a tradesman has furnished
contract of his son, unless either an ac- a young man with clothes to an extra-
tual authority were proved, or circum- vagant extent, he cannot sue the father
stances appeared, from which such an for any part of his demand, 1 Esp. Rep.
authority might be implied; were it 17; nor is the infant liable for any part
otherwise, a father who had an impru- of the articles. 2 Bla. Rep. 1325. And
dent son, might be prejudiced to an in- it should seem, as in the cases of hus-
definite extent, and it was therefore ne- band and wife, or principal and agent, if
cessary that some proof should be given the credit be given solely to the child,
that the order of a son was made by the the parent will not in any case be liable.
authority of his father. The question, But although in a particular case, credit
therefore, for the consideration of the may have been given to a minor, and not
jury was, whether under the circum- to his parent, yet the latter may be re-
stances of the particular case, there was sponsible in a case of fraud. Thus where
sufficient to convince them that the de- the goods were supplied to a minor on a
fendant had invested bis son with such fraudulent representation by his father,
authority. He had placed his son at the that he was about to relinquish business
military college at Harlow, and had paid in favour of his son, although the credit
his expences whilst he remained there ; was given to the son, the father dealing
the son, it appeared, then obtained á with the proceeds was held responsible,
commission in the army, and having in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered.
found his way to London, at a consi- 1 Stark. 20.
derable distance from his father's resi-

and shall be levied by the said church wardens and overseers, or one of them, First, Of com. by warrant from any two such justices of the peace, or mayor, alderman, pelling parents, or head officer of city, town, or place corporate, respectively, within their

&c. several limits, by distress and sale thereof, as aforesaid; or in defect thereof, it shall be lawful for any two such justices of peace, and the said aldermen and head officers, within their several limits, to commit the offender to the said prison, there to remain without bail or mainprize till the said forfeitures shall be satisfied and paid.”

And by 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 26, reciting, that “ whereas by the said act Justices in petty passed in the forty-third year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for the relief sessions empowof the poor, it was enacted, that the father and grandfather, and the mother relief by parents, and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame, and im- &c. potent person, or other poor person not able to work, being of a sufficient ability, shall at their own charges relieve and maintain every such poor person, in that manner and according to that rate as by the justices of the peace of that county where such sufficient persons dwell, or the greater number of them, at their general quarter session, shall be assessed: And whereas it is expedient to extend the power which is by the said act given to justices in their general quarter sessions, to justices in petty sessions : Be it further enacted, that it shall be lawful for any two or more of his Majesty's justices of the peace, for the county or other jurisdiction in which any such sufficient person shall dwell, and they are hereby empowered, in any petty session, to make such assessment and order for the relief of every poor, old, blind, lame, impotent or other poor person not able to work, upon and by the father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, or child, (being of sufficient ability) of every such poor person, as may by virtue of the said act be made by the justices in their general quarter sessions ; and that every such assessment and order of two or more justices in any petty sessions shall have the like force and effect as if the same were made by the justices in their general quarter sessions; and the disobedience thereof shall be punishable in like manner."

Father and Mother.] Reg. v. Clentham, Fol, 39; 1 Bott, 343; 2 Nol. P. L. A man is not 262. It was moved to quash an order upon the father-in-law, to maintain obliged to mainhis wife's daughter, his wife being dead. By the whole Court: The husband children by a ought to provide for the daughter-in-law during the wife's life, in the right former husband of his wife; but when the wife dies, the relation is dissolved, and he is not by any means obliged to provide for the daughter-in-law after her mother's death.

So in Reg. v. St. Botolph's, Aldgate, Fol. 42; 1 Bott, 344 ; 2 Nol. P. L. 262. The single question was, whether the husband shall be chargeable to maintain his wife's children by a former husband? And it was resolved he was during the wife's life, in her right, but not after.

There was an order upon the mother, who was married to a second hus. band, to maintain her children which she had by the former husband. But by the Court: A feme covert cannot be charged, but they ought to have charged her husband. Fol. 44; 1 Bla. Com. 448, 449.

But the contrary was established in the case of Tubb and others v. Harrison The statute of and another, 4 T. R. 118; 1 Bott, 452; and a husband is not now bound, Eliz.extends only even whilst his wife is alive, to support her parents, or her children by a

to natural relaformer husband, or any other relations. This was an action of covenant in which the defendants, who were father and son (after reciting that differences had arisen between the son and his wife, and that they had agreed to live separate), covenanted inter alia to pay all the debts contracted by her, which her husband was by law liable to pay. One of the breaches assigned was, that they had refused to repay money laid out for board, lodging, and other necessaries for her infant son by a former husband.Lord Kenyon, C. J., on the authority of Rex v. Munday, 1 Str. 190, post, p. 166, in which an order of maintenance was reversed by the Court, because the stat. of Eliz. extends only to natural relations, was of opinion that the husband was not liable to pay the expences of maintaining the wife's child

after their mo. ther's death,


« PreviousContinue »