« PreviousContinue »
6. Proof of cer. tificate.
rated in habitant who was overseer of the re
was held to be
that some account should be
that the witness was not compe.
Eleventhly, Of Rex v. Ashton Keynes, Burr. S. C. 725. The certificate was signed by settlement by A. B. and P. J., and in the allowance it was certified that P.J. came before acknowledge the justices, and made oath that he was present with the other witness and ment, 8ic,
saw it signed by the parish officers, and that his name was his own writing.
The sessions thought this no certificate, because A. B.'s signature was not 5. Of allowance,
proved before the justices. But the Court were clear, that there was suffi-
Sixthly— Proof of Certificate.
to Honley, discharged. Case: A person, who was a rated inhabitant, and A parish certificate of more than overseer of the poor of Netherthong, produced a certificate, dated in 1756, thirty years'
from Honley to Netherthong, acknowledging the pauper's grandfather and
father to belong to Honley. It was objected, that before such certificate per's grandfather could be received and read in evidence, some account must be given of it, and father to be- and whence it came, which the witness was not competent to give, being a long to the appellant parish, rated inhabitant of Netherthong. The sessions refused to permit the witness produced by a to give evidence. It was admitted that after Rex v. Ryton, (post, 675), the
ruling of the sessions could not be sustained; but it was prayed that the case
might be remitted to be heard on the merits.- Lord Ellenborough, C. J. I respondent parish, member upon the trial of an action for a false return to a mandamus, a corpoevidence, though
rator was called to produce some of the corporation muniments, and objection it was objected was taken to his admissibility. But Lord Kenyon said, that he should hold him
capable, as a depositary of the muniments, of being brought forward for the given of it, and purpose of producing them, and that if the party objecting wished to enquire
as to the custody he might, and that he would receive the evidence. If the tent to give that parties choose to stand on such a point as this, it may be as well that they account; and it should abide by it. Order of sessions quashed. Scarlett mentioned the
3 Geo. II. c. 29, s. 8, which directs that a certificate, after it has been allowed, cessary he might
and the oath of its execution certified by the justices, shall be evidence withto the custody. out further proof. On an appeal, the Rex v. Debenham, 2 B. &. A. 185. Removal from Debenham to Kenton, respondents, in
quashed. Case: The pauper had gained a settlement in Debenham, unless
it could be shewn that his father at the time resided in that parish under a delivery to them certificate from Kenton. No such certificate could be found in the custody of a certificate given by the ap
of Debenham. The pauper's father, James Driver, proved, that in 1771, pellants, acknow. having been removed from Debenham to Kenton, 'Debenham refused to ledging the pau. allow him to return, unless Kenton would grant him a certificate ; to this
Kenton consented. An order for granting this certificate was made at the ant, produced an quarterly meeting of the directors and guardians of the incorporated huntheir own parish dreds of Loes and Wilford, (in which Kenton is situated,) as appeared by an chest, in which entry in the minute book of the proceedings of the hundred-house quarterly was an entry of
meetings, dated 20th March, 1771. And to prove that such certificate was hand writing of
delivered to the respondents in pursuance of such order, a book was produced a former parish from the parish chest of Debenham, on the outside of the cover was “ Certs. officer : Held,
Rec'd. Bonds do. Coppys of Orders, 1756.” This book contained memorandums of orders of removal, of bonds, and certificates received. The certificates were regularly numbered, and under the title of certificates received, was the following entry, dated 1771, “ No. 88. John Polkins from Kenton.-No. 89. James Driver, do." There were a variety of other certificates subsequently entered. The sessions were of opinion that this book was not admissible in evidence. Nolan and Dover supported the order, and Scarlett and Primrose contra.- Abbott, C. J. The principles of the law of evidence in this country are founded on the strongest sense, and soundest reasoning. It is of the first importance to preserve them strictly; inasmuch as they are the great safeguards of the subject, in the administration of justice in all cases, from those involving property of the most trifling amount, to those where the life of an individual is at stake. I therefore should be extremely unwilling to come to any decision which should break in upon any established principle. It is an established principle, that
seems that if ne.
be examined as
order to prove the fact of the
per to be their settled inhabit
that fact in the
that such evi. dence was inadmissible.
nothing said or done by a person having at the time an interest in the sub- Eleventhly, Of ject matter, shall be evidence either for him or persons claiming under settlement by him. Now the entry in this book is of that description; for it is made by a acknowledgperson having an interest to make it, inasmuch as it is produced as proof of ment, &c. the delivery of a certificate by which the parish of which the party making 6. Proof of ceran entry is an inhabitant, is to be relieved from the burden of maintaining tificate. the individual named in the certificate. I think, therefore, that the safest course which the court can pursue will be to hold, that the sessions were justified in rejecting this evidence. There are, however, in this case, other circumstances from which the sessions may draw the conclusion, (if they shall think fit so to do,) that the certificate was in fact delivered. I think, therefore, that the case should go back to be reheard upon that point.-Bayley, J. I am entirely of the same opinion, that the entry in this book was not evidence, the effect of it being to advance the interest of the person who made it.—Holroyd, J., concurred. Case sent back to be reheard.
Rex v. Ryton, 5 1. R. 259. Where the respondents produced a certificate, more than thirty years old, purporting to be granted to their parish by the appellant parish, the Court of King's Bench said that it was sufficient for the respondents barely to produce the certificate to the sessions, without giving any account of it. [See Rex v. Netherthong, ante, 674.]
Rex v. Wooton St. Lawrence, Burr. S. C. 581; 2 Bott, 713. The certificate had not been duly allowed, still it was argued that it amounted to an admission by the parish of the pauper's then settlement; but the Court held that if it was not a certificate within the act, it did not conclude the parish, and if allowed as evidence and presumption, would lead to great litigation.
But in Rex v. St. Nicholas, Haruich, Burr. S. C. 171., Wright, J., said, that the neglect to deliver, did not make the certificate ineffectual; the parish who gave the certificate is, at all events, bound by the certificate, and the certificate is therefore good as against them. [When allowance presumed, ante, 673.]
Serenthly-Of the Delivery of Certificates. (a) A certificate of the master must be delivered, to prevent his apprentice from 7. of the delivery acquiring a settlement.(6) Rex v. Wernley. [See case and judgment, post.] of certificates.
Rex v. Egremont, 14 East, 253. Wm. Gainsford removed from Egre- The mere delimont to Cockermouth, order quashed. Case: The pauper was bound appren- cate from a tice to J. Raney, April 18th, 1802, for seven years, and served more than friendly society forty days of the latter part of his apprenticeship with J. B. in Cockermouth, to a member, un. who came into that parish with a certificate from an Amicable Society, 34, not sufficient acknowledging him to be a member of that society. On the certificate was to prevent a set. an indorsement signed by a justice, according to the act. The only question tlement. was, Whether the production of the certificate was sufficient evidence under the 33 Geo. III. c. 54, without proof of its having been delivered to the churchwardens and overseers of Cockermouth?— It was said, that this evidence was sufficient, for the 18th sect.of the act provided that such a certificate so attested and certified, “shall be taken, deemed, and allowed in all courts whatsoever, as duly and fully proved, and shall be taken and received as evidence, without other proof thereof.” But that if this were not sufficient, yet the sessions, under the circumstances, might presume that it had been delivered as it was produced in court by the parish of Cockermouth.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. To warrant them in presuming any fact there must be presumable matter. The mere giving of the certificate by the society to the member, is not made sufficient by the act to protect his residence under it in the parish, without a delivery of it to the parish officers. The 17th sect.
(a) See division of the subject, ante, but this mode would afford such an op662.
portunity for fraudulently defeating the (b) In the above case of Rer v. St. object of the regulation, that the courts Nicholas, Harwich, Chapple, J., is re- would hardly countenance such doctrine, ported to have said, that the delivery to especially as the statute seems to require an inhabitant, though it did not appear a delivery to the churchwardens or over. that he was a parish officer, is sufficient; seers.
8. Persons pro.
tects paupers re
house of their
Eleventhly, of says, that no members of the society who shall come to inhabit in any parish, settlement by and shall deliver to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of such parish acknowledge a certificate, &c., shall be removable till actually chargeable. But if it ment, &c.
remain in the pocket of the certificated person, that is not sufficient to prevent 7. or the delivery a settlement being gained under him. Here there is an absence of any proof
of its having been delivered to the parish officers before the period when the apprentice served his master in Cockermouth, and therefore an exclusion of any presumption of the fact.—Order of sessions quashed.
Eighthly— Persons protected by Certificates from Removal. (a)
Rex v. St. Peter and St. Paul, Bath, Cald. 213. The pauper was removed tected, &c. from the parish of L. and W. to St. Peter and St. Paul, Bath. Order conCertificate pro- firmed. Case: The parishes of St. Peter and St. Paul, had together purchased siding in a poor.
a piece of land, in L. and W., and built thereon a common poor-house. In
this they placed the pauper, and others, giving them certificates to L. and parish situated in W. The pauper had not been chargeable to L. and W., but was removed by
it on the ground that he was not an object of the certificate act, and therefore not protected by it.-Lord Mansfield, C. J., held that no restriction was imposed against two parishes uniting under 9 Geo. I. c. 7, s. 4, to purchase a building for their poor, and that they might purchase it in a third parish; that when it is once purchased, it becomes a part of the local system of each parish ; and if the poor will not go there, they are not entitled to relief. And that the certificate acts authorise the whole body of the poor, of whatever denomination, and with whatever object, to leave their own, and to remove into any other parish, provided they can obtain the protection of a certificate
. -Buller, J., as to the difficulty about bastards gaining settlements by birth, I should doubt whether the poor-house is not to this purpose to be considered as part of the parishes to which it so belongs, as in the case of children born in gaols. Order quashed.
Ninthly—To what Individuals a Certificate extends. (a)
Rex v. Sherborne, Burr. S. C. 182. The case stated that the pauper's duals, &c.
father came to Sherborne with a certificate including his wife and family from An unborn child Thornford. About two years after, his wife died, and he married the pauper's certificate, so as mother; and three years after this marriage, the pauper was born, in Sherto prevent his borne, whilst his father resided under the certificate. When the pauper was gaining a settlement by hiring
sixteen, he was hired and served for a year to an inhabitant of Sherborne.and service. The Court held that the pauper did, by his birth, come by certificate into
Sherborne ; and that he was restrained to the two modes of acquiring a settlement specified in the statute.—(No argument was raised as to the second wife.) S. P. Rex v. Bray, M., 19 Geo. II., Burr. S. C. 259; and Rex v.
Buckingham, Burr. S. C. 314. If a parish grant Rex v. Ipsley, Burr. S. C. 650. A certificate was given by Studley to spinster with
Ipsley, which acknowledged " Ann Causier, a spinster, and the child she now child, acknow. goeth with, to be legally settled in Studley :” She was delivered of a child ledging both to
in Ipsley, and removed to Studley. The Court held that the parish of be legally settled in the parish so
Studley was bound by this certificate, thus noticing the woman's being certifying, such unmarried and with child, and acknowledging the child she then went with parish is bound
to be legally settled in that parish.
Rex v. Mathon, 7 T. R. 362. The parish of Mathon engaged by a certitard in the certi. ficate to receive and relieve M. C. with the child of which she was then fied parish.
pregnant, and all other children she might thereafter have. Some years But a certificate, after she had an illegitimate child in the certificated parish.—Lord Kenyon.
It is not now necessary to question the propriety of Rex v. Ipsley, as that ing to receive her certainly, went much beyond the former cases on the subject. However,
that is distinguishable from the present, as that only extended to the child dren she might with which the woman was then pregnant, and a child en ventre sa mere is thereafter have, does pot extend
capable of being described. But this child was not born till eight years to a bastard born after the certificate was granted, and being illegitimate, it is not included several years within the general words of the certificate, which extends only to legitimate
9. What indivi
a certificate to a
to receive the child born a bas
man to be un.
and all the chil.
(a) See division of the subject, ante, 662.
Rex v. Darlington, 4 T. R. 797. Sarah, widow of T. Milburn, and Eleventhly, Of seven children, were removed from All Saints to Darlington. Order con- settlement by firmed. Case: The grandfather of the pauper's husband came to All Saints, acknowledge with a certificate from Darlington. Ďuring his residence there he had a ment, &c. son, Thomas, who lived with him as part of his family, except for one year, 9. What indiviwhen he was a servant in All Saints; after which service he returned to his duals, &c. father, and married, when he had a child, the pauper's husband, who lived A certificate does in All Saints till his death. The pauper's husband, at the age of fourteen, pot extend to was hired and served for three years in All Saints. Some time before this nor to children service, the grandfather returned with his wife to Darlington, (leaving his after they beson and son's family behind,) and died there.—Lord Kenyon, C. J. By families. 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, the parish to which the certificate is granted, is obliged
The family conto receive the certificated person, together with his or her family. Now what sists of those who is the fair legal import of the word family? It is true that in construing a live under the will, and where it is the intention of the testator that it shall extend beyond the pater-famithe immediate children, it may have that operation : but that is not the sense lias, who form his in which it is used in this act. In common parlance, the family consists of fire-side. those who live under the same roof with the pater-familias; those who form his fire-side. But when they branch out and become the heads of new establishments, they cease to be part of the father's family. I admit that a certificate extends to the son on account of the positive words of the act of parliament, he being part of the father's family; but when he himself becomes the head of a family, then the words of the statute, public policy, and the convenience of mankind, require that he should no longer be considered as part of his father's family, or be protected by the certificate granted to his father. Giving full effect to the certificate, as far as the words of the act and the intention of the legislature go, I think it meets with its boundary line, when it has protected the family of the certificated person ; that is, all those who live with the pater-familias ; and, consequently, that this grandchild, who was the son of the head of a distinct family, was not prevented gaining a settlement by hiring and service.-Grose, J. Grandchildren are not, properly speaking, of the family of the grandfather, but of his son ; for when the son becomes the head of a new branch, and has children of his own, he ceases to be a part of his father's family, and his children then form a part of his own family. Orders quashed. [Same point in Rex v. Heath, 5 T. R. 583; and Rex v. Hampton, id. 266.]
Rex v. Testerton, 5 T. R. 258. Testerton gave Great Ryburgh a certi- If the child is ficate for Thomas Wood, the father of the pauper, his wife, and seven tificate, his chilchildren, by name, of which the pauper was one. The pauper lived with dren are inhis father at Ryburgh till he was twenty; he then lived as a servant included. Ryburgh for a year, and returned to his father. He then served two years more as a servant in Ryburgh, and afterwards returned to his father, and resided a year with him, and then married, and has lived in Ryburgh till this order was made, but never with his father since his marriage. His father has been dead about five years. Lord Kenyon said, This case was not contrary to Rex v. Darlington, for here the pauper is mentioned by name in the certificate itself, and he has never gained any settlement or lived out of the certificated parish since it was given. Order of removal to Testerton, confirmed.
Rex v. Batheaston, 8 T. R. 446. E. Gay, the grandfather of the pauper, Same point. went to Box with a certificate from Batheaston, certifying him, his wife, and “ Edward and Thomas their children.” Edward lived with his father till he married at Box, and had the pauper, who was hired and served as a servant in Bor. The order of removal of pauper to Batheaston was confirmed : and the Court of King's Bench held, That the distinction was taken in Rex v. Testerton, between those cases where the certificate is granted to a person and his family generally, and those where the son is mentioned by name in the certificate ; that in the former, a grandson is not within the protection of the certificate; but that in the latter, where the son is named, his family, until they are emancipated, are within the protection of the certificate, not as the grandchildren of the principal person named, but as the family and
9. What indivi.
son included as
and lives sepa
a settlement in the certificated
Eleventhly, of children of the person who is also named, and therefore Rex v. Testerton settlement by ought to govern this case.—Order confirmed. (a) acknowledge Rex v. Mortlake, 6 East, 397. Removal of Mary Dormer and children ment, &c.
from Mortlake to Great Marlow, quashed. Case : John Dormer and Ann
his wife, went with a certificate from Hambleton to Great Marlow, and duals, &c. during their residence at G. M. had a son, William. John and William
died there. But William had left his father's family, married, and occupied a come into a pa- separate house at Great Marlow, and had a son named Thomas, who in 1760, tificate must also several years after the death of John and Ann, was bound apprentice to his reside there under father for seven years, and served the same at Great Marlow. Thomas was it, for the purpose afterwards married, and had a son named Thomas, now deceased, who was of being within the operation of
the husband of the pauper, and the father of the children removed. The it, therefore question was, Whether under the apprenticeship of T. D., the elder, to his where a son of a father W. D., and the 12 Anne, c. 18, T. D., the elder, had gained a settlecertificated per
ment in G. M?—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The question is, Whether one of the father's William, the son of John, who was once covered by his father's certificate, family, marries
ceased to be so when he married and lived separately from his father ? for rately from the if he ceased to be covered by the certificate himself, there seems to be no father, his apprentice may gain
reason why he might not communicate a settlement to another, as well as gain one himself in the certificated parish. This depends upon the meaning
of the word “ family” in 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30. The meaning of the word is parish.
not to be taken in its largest sense, and has been soundly restrained by the determinations in Rex v. Darlington, and Rex. v. Heath, to those who constitute part of the existing household and family of the certificated person, or, as Lord Kenyon expressed it in Rex v. Darlington, those who form his fire-side. That character cannot apply to William after he had married and left his father's house, and had become a new stirps, having a family of his own. Rex v. Hampton was decided upon the ground that the second wife continued after her husband's death to be the root and remains of the old family, and not a substantive distinct family, as here. She still continued as the representative of ber deceased husband: but here the son had started for himself at the head of a new family by marrying, and taking a separate house for himself. He was then in a condition to gain a settlement for himself in the certificated parish. But the words of the statute of Anne are relied on, to shew that he is not such a person with whom an apprentice bound to him could gain a settlement there, and it is said that they are in the disjunctive, come into or reside in :" but upon referring to the certificate act, the 8 &9W.III. c. 30, which speaks of persons who “ shall come into any parish, there to be, inhabit, and reside," and the 9 & 10 W. III. c. 11, which speaks of doubts having arisen upon the former statute, by what acts any person coming to inhabit or reside within any parish by virtue of any such certificate, may procure a settlement, and which enacts that no person who shall come into any parish (without more) by any such certificate, shall gain any settlement there, except in certain ways mentioned; I say, upon comparing the words of the statute of Anne with the former provisions, I think those words must be read copulatively, and that they mean only to designate persons who may come into any parish for the purpose of residing, and actually reside there under a
certificate. The other judges agreed. A parish certifi. Rex v. Thwaites, 1 M.Š. S. 669. Removal from Harrington to Thwaites, cate granted to
confirmed. Case: The pauper, Huddleston, was born in Thwaites, but was T. C., and J., his wife, engaging bound apprentice to R. Cass, in Brigham, and served his whole time in that to receive them, township. T. Cass, the father of R. Cass, resided at Brigham, under a cer
tificate from Sunderland, which had been delivered to the parish of Brigham, to be born, only acknowledging T. Cass and his wife to be settled within their township, extends to a son, and they promised to receive them, their child or children, born or to be
children born or
(a) The principle of these cases seems able with these cases, must be underto be confirmed by Rer v. Thwaites (su. stood in reference to derivative settle. pra); and the observations of Lord El- ments only, and so they seem to have lenborough and Bayley, J., in Rex v. been construed by Mr. Nolan, vol, 2, Leek Wootton (post, 678), if reconcile. 174.