and impotent 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 peace of that county where such sufficient persons dwell, or the greater number of them, at their general quarter sessions, shall be assessed; upon pain that every one of them shall forfeit twenty shillings for every month 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; tain his child, or on a child to relieve his parent; and therefore a third person, who may afford such relief, even from absolute want, cannot sue the parent for a reasonable remuneration, unless he expressly or impliedly contracted to pay. See per Le Blanc, J., 4 East, 84; Sir T. Raym. 260, margin; Palmer, 559; 2 Stark, 521. Whereas, as we have seen in the case of husband and wife, the former may, in some cases, be sued for necessaries provided for the latter, even in defiance of the husband's injunctions not to supply them. The law considered moral duties of this nature like others of imperfect obligation, as better left in their performance to the impulse of nature. However a parent may, under circumstances, be indicted at common law for not supplying an infant child with necessaries. Russell & R. C. C. 20, 2 Camp. 650; and very slight circumstances will suffice to justify a jury in finding a contract on the part of the father. common In a late case, where a parent was sought to be charged for regimentals furnished to his son, the Lord Chief Justice left it as a question for the jury to consider whether they could infer that the order was given by the assent and with the authority of the father. He said, that "a father would not be bound by the contract of his son, unless either an actual authority were proved, or circumstances appeared, from which such an authority might be implied; were it otherwise, a father who had an imprudent son, might be prejudiced to an indefinite extent, and it was therefore necessary that some proof should be given that the order of a son was made by the authority of his father. The question, therefore, for the consideration of the jury was, whether under the circumstances of the particular case, there was sufficient to convince them that the defendant had invested his son with such authority. He had placed his son at the military college at Harlow, and had paid his expences whilst he remained there; the son, it appeared, then obtained a commission in the army, and having found his way to London, at a considerable distance from his father's resi dence, had ordered regimentals and other articles suitable to his equipment for the East Indies. If it had appeared in evidence, that the defendant had supplied his son with money for this purpose, or that he had ordered these articles to be furnished elsewhere, either of those "circumstances," the learned judge observed, "might have rebutted the presumption of any authority from the defendant to order them from the plaintiff: nothing, however, of this nature had been proved, and since the articles were necessary for the son, and suitable to that situation in which the defendant had placed him, it was for the jury to say whether they were not satisfied that an authority had been given by the defendant." The jury found in the affirmative. 2 Stark. Rep. 521. So where a man marries a widow who has children by her former husband, who are received by the second husband into, and held out by him to the world as forming part of his own family, he will be liable to pay third persons for necessaries furnished for them. Per Lord Ellenborough, 4 East, 82. But where a parent allows his child a reasonable sum for his expences, he will not be liable, even for necessaries ordered by such child. 2 Esp. Rep. 471. And where a tradesman has furnished a young man with clothes to an extravagant extent, he cannot sue the father for any part of his demand, 1 Esp. Rep. 17; nor is the infant liable for any part of the articles. 2 Bla. Rep. 1325. And it should seem, as in the cases of husband and wife, or principal and agent, if the credit be given solely to the child, the parent will not in any case be liable. But although in a particular case, credit may have been given to a minor, and not to his parent, yet the latter may be responsible in a case of fraud. Thus where the goods were supplied to a minor on a fraudulent representation by his father, that he was about to relinquish business in favour of his son, although the credit was given to the son, the father dealing with the proceeds was held responsible, in assumpsit for goods sold and delivered. 1 Stark, 20. &c. and shall be levied by the said churchwardens 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 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 passed in the forty-third year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, for the relief of the poor, it was enacted, that the father and grandfather, and the mother and grandmother, and the children of every poor, old, blind, lame, and impotent 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. 262. It was moved to quash an order upon the father-in-law, to maintain his wife's daughter, his wife being dead. By the whole Court: The husband ought to provide for the daughter-in-law during the wife's life, in the right 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 husband, 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 and another, 4 T. R. 118; 1 Bott, 452; and a husband is not now bound, even whilst his wife is alive, to support her parents, or her children by a former 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 Justices in petty sessions empowrelief by parents, ered to order &c. A man is not obliged to mainchildren by a former husband tain his wife's after their mother's death. The statute of to natural rela- First, Of compelling parents, &c. Son's wife, the son having run away, not to be maintained by the son's father. Nor son's widow. Nor daughter-inlaw. Grandfather and grandmother. A son-in-law is not obliged to maintain his wife's mother. by a former husband, although the wife were then living, and ordered those articles in the account to be disallowed. One who marries a widow, having children by her former husband, is not bound to maintain such children, though they were maintained by the widow before her second marriage, when her second husband acquired her former means. Therefore, if the second husband maintain such children, it is a good consideration for a promise by them when they come of age to repay the expence of their maintenance respectively: especially where the second husband was a man of small substance, and the children had a competent provision to receive when they came of age, which was to accumulate for them in the mean time, and he made no application to chancery for an allowance out of the fund, as he might have done. Cooper v. Martin, 4 East, 76; 1 Bott, 453; 2 Nol. P. L. 263, 264. Rex v. Kempson, 2 Str. 955; 1 Bott, 450; 2 Nol. P. L. 231, 232. It was moved to quash an order upon the father to pay a certain sum weekly to his son's wife, his son having run away from her a few days after he married her. A divorce a mensâ et thoro for adultery was afterwards obtained against the wife, she having had a child in the meantime. To this order two exceptions were taken: first, that it appears the son's wife was an adultress; and therefore the husband himself would not have been bound to maintain her, much more the husband's father could not. To this it was answered, and allowed by the Court, that whatever effect this act of the wife might have upon the husband, it could not have any upon the parish. Secondly, it was objected, that the statute extends only to natural relations, and for this purpose was cited the case of Rex v. Munday (hereafter following); and the Court were of opinion that this objection was fatal, and that the act doth not extend to relations in law. 2 Barnard, 329, 364. Reg. v. Dunn, 2 Nol. P. L. 263; 1 Bott, 446. An order of sessions was made that the defendant should maintain his son's widow, her husband, his son, being dead. The order being removed into the K. B., an objection was taken that by the death of the son the relation which she bore to the father ceased and although the order was quashed, because it was not set forth that the father was of sufficient ability, yet the Court seemed to allow the exception good. Rex v. Benoire, ib. 449; 2 Nol. P. L. 263. Rule to quash an order for the maintenance of a daughter-in-law, because there was no relation in blood, nor obligation by nature. Rex v. Munday was cited. No cause was shewn, and the order was quashed in the following term. Grandfather and Grandmother.] Rex v. Reeve, 2 Bulstr. 344; 1 Bott, 421; 2 Ñol. P. L. 262. The reputed grandfather or grandmother are not within the statute; for a bastard is filius populi. Though the father be living, yet, if he be unable, the grandfather, being of ability, may be compelled to keep the grandchild, and also to pay so much money as the justices shall think reasonable for the time past. Reg. v. Joyce, 16 Viner, 423; 1 Bott, 445; 2 Nol. P. L. 263. And Children.] Rex v. Munday, 1 Str. 190; 1 Bott, 447; 2 Nol. P. L. 232. Order reciting that Munday had a good fortune with his wife, and that her mother was poor, therefore he is ordered to provide for her.-By Pratt, C. J. The cases which have hitherto been, were either where the judges were divided, or the matter came not directly in question, or was only a case at the judge's chamber. It never came judicially before the whole Court till now. And as it is res integra, on consideration we are all of opinion that the son-in-law is not bound, either within the words or intent of the statute, which provides only for natural parents. By the law of nature, a man was bound to take care of his own father and mother. But there being no temporal obligation to enforce that law of nature, it was found necessary to establish it by act of parliament, and that can be extended no farther than the law of nature went before; and the law of nature doth not reach to this case. And the order must be quashed. This case was acknowledged by Lord Kenyon, in Tubb v. Harrison, ante, 165. First, Of compelling parents, &c. Nor a step-father And where a step-father had maintained the son of his wife whilst he was under age, who, when he was of age, promised to pay his step-father the expence he had incurred; he brought an action for it, and it was held, he his step-son. was not bound by the act of marriage with the mother to maintain her son, but stood in that respect in the situation of any other stranger. And having done an act beneficial to the defendant in his infancy, it was a good consideration for the defendant's promise after he came of age. If the step-father had been bound by law to maintain the children of the wife, then the promise of the step-son would have been a nudum pactum, and the step-father could have maintained no action upon it. 4 East, 82. The son's father is not compellable to maintain the son's wife, 2 Stra. 955. In the case of Walton v. Spark, Comb. 320; 1 Bott, 439; (by the name Grandchildren. of Waltham v. Sparkes) 2 Nol. P. L. 196. Holt, C. J., said, that if a man marries a grandmother, with whom he hath any estate, and she dies, he must maintain the grandchildren, though the relation be determined. But there is no express decision that the word children in the statute extends to grandchildren. The instances are not numerous in the books in which this question has been discussed, and there are none of very recent occurrence. Affection will, in most instances, induce the discharge of this obligation with more efficacy than an act of parliament; and even where that motive is wanting, a sense of shame will supersede the necessity of resorting to the statute, where the party is of sufficient ability to render this assistance to relatives, even more distant in degree than is expressed in the enactment. (A.) Complaint of Overseer, upon which to obtain an Order of Main- A. tenance on Parents, &c. County of At a petty sessions of the peace of our lord the king, held at the said county, the in Overseer's complaint, or infor day of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and before the undersigned justices of our said lord the king, assigned to keep the peace of our said lord the king, in and for the county aforesaid: An application is made to us the said justices, by the undersigned overseer of the poor of the parish of in the county of on behalf of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish, to have an order made on A. B. of in the county of for him to maintain his poor and unable to work for himself, and chargeable to the said parish of said A. B., being a person of sufficient ability to provide for his suid Exhibited before us, J. S. T. P. who is he, the A. O. mation. County of The order of and (B.) Order on a Parent or Child to give Relief, &c. esquires, two of his Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the said county, one whereof is of the quorum, made at a petty sessions held at in the said county, the day of year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and us, the justices aforesaid, at the said petty sessions, by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of in the county of in the said county of in the upon an application to to have an order made on for him to maintain his A. B. of said VOL. IV. M B. Order of maintenance. First, Of com pelling parents, &c. C. Information of overseers for disobedience of order of maintenance. for and towards for and during upon notice of this our order, pay or cause to be paid to the churchwardens and over- or until J. S. (L. S.) (C.) Information of an Overseer against a Parent or Child for disobeying an Order of Maintenance, &c. the the County of The information and complaint of A. O., one of the overseers of the poor day of for and towards for and during and every week, from the date of the said order, the sum of to the day of D. Warrant of distress thereon. Before us, J. S. T. P. A. O. (D.) Warrant of Distress on a Parent or Child for disobeying an Order To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of County of Whereas, by an order under the hands and seals of the of his Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the county of ne whereof is of the quorum, made at a petty sessions held at in the said county of in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and upon an application to the said petty sessions by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of in the county of have an order made on A. B. of in the said county of tain his and chargeable to the said parish of to for him to main who is poor and unable to work, so as to maintain and support himself, the said A. B. being a person of sufficient He, the said A. B., was ordered, upon due notice thereof, to pay or cause to be paid to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of for the time being, or to some or one of them, weekly and every week, from the date of the said order, the sum of the sustentation, relief, maintenance, and support of the said so long time as the said |