Eleventhly, Of settlement by acknowledg ment, &c. 13. Of appren certificate. certificated men shall not by virtue of such apprenticeship, indenture, or binding, gain a settlement in such parish, it is necessary that the binding should be such as would be capable of conferring a settlement by service under the original master in that place, otherwise no settlement can be gained there by virtue thereof; for the legislature intended that no act whatever of this sort done by a certificated man should help to bind the parish. As to Rex v. ticeship under Petham, where it was held, that the apprentice of a master, certificated to Tenterden, might gain a settlement under an assignment to a second master residing at Lidd, which was a third parish; that does not govern the present, because it does not interfere with the policy of the statute of Anne: for the parish of Lidd had not received the original master by force of the certificate, and therefore had no right to avail themselves of the provisions of that statute, which was intended for the protection of the certificated parish. But here the words of the statute cover Hinckley in the broadest manner, to prevent any burthen coming on that parish on account of their obligation to receive the certificated person. The other case principally relied on, (of Romsey parish), has no application to the present question; for though it was contended generally at the bar, that the statute of Anne was confined to apprentices bound by indentures to certificated masters, and claiming settlements by serving under such original masters, yet the Court by no means adopted that argument, but decided rather on the ground that no settlement could be gained by the apprentice, through the medium of a certificated person in that parish. Therefore, as there has been heretofore no determination on this point; as the statute of Anne was passed for the express protection of the certificated parish; and as the words of the act are very particular and positive in favour of that parish, we see no reason to restrain the meaning of them to a service with the original master. Both orders quashed. Rex v. Manningtree, 6 M. & S. 214. Order of removal of W. Finch from Manningtree to Culphoe, quashed. Case: The pauper was born in Manningtree, where his parents were residing under a certificate from Culphoe. When he was nineteen years of age and upwards, he was duly bound apprentice to R. Hobson, of Mistley, for three years, to serve on board his vessel, engaged in the coasting trade from Mistley to London. He served his master for two years, and then ran away, the vessel then being at Mistley. Eight months previous to this he became twenty-one, during which eight months he slept at his father's, in Manningtree, for more than forty nights, with his master's consent, his master having no room for him. He slept at his father's the night before he ran away. Whenever the vessel was at Mistley, the pauper uniformly slept at his father's. No evidence was offered of a settlement gained by the pauper in any other parish. He was not married, nor had his father done any act to discharge the certificate. The sessions thought a settlement had been gained in Manningtree.—Lord Ellenborough, C. J. It has occurred to this Court, upon reference to the 3 W. & M. c. 11, which requires a binding, as well as inhabitation, in order to confer a settlement, for the words are," such binding and inhabitation," that in a case like the present, where the pauper is to be withdrawn from the effect of a certificate, and placed in a condition to acquire a settlement in the certificated parish, by some act clearly indicative of his being sui juris, the binding must be for this purpose after he has attained his full age. It is plain the binding here, was before he was of age; and that seems to make an end of the question.-Bayley, J. It is clear, I think, that a settlement could not be gained in Manningtree, by this pauper, by means of a binding and service there, whilst he was under age. A settlement in that parish could only be acquired by him after he became sui juris; and as it regards a settlement by apprenticeship, the act of binding, as well as inhabitancy, ought to be one entire act after he was of age, and not an act in part commencing during his nonage. The binding, therefore, ought to have been after he was twenty-one. In this lies the distinction between this case and Rex v. Morley, because a hiring and service concurred there, after the pauper was of age. This decision will not militate with former cases. The Court does not say that, where a settlement in the certificated parish is not A settlement by can be gained by of the certificated person, only by a binding and he is sui juris. inhabitation after Eleventhly, of settlement by acknowledgment, &c. 13. Of apprenticeship under certificate. in question, this doctrine will apply; if the question here were upon the effect of this binding coupled with a service in a third parish, the Court does not pronounce that the pauper would not have acquired a settlement there. For instance, let the binding be in A, the service in B, and let the apprentice sleep in C, in that case the settlement would be in C; yet if C be the certificated parish, then, unless the binding and sleeping be entire after the pauper be of age, he does not acquire a settlement in the parish C. This, I apprehend, is the distinction on which the Court means to decide the case.-Holroyd, J. The son of a certificated person included in the certificate as part of his family, can only gain a settlement in the certificated parish when he is sui juris. Under 3 W. & M. c. 11, two things are requisite to confer a settlement by apprenticeship; viz., binding and inhabitancy. By analogy to that statute, when the question regards a settlement in the certificated parish, both these must concur after the party is of full age, so as to make an act sui juris. If the apprentice had been bound when he was of age, and had served afterwards, Rex v. Morley would have been in point. Order of sessions quashed. St. Cuthbert's v. Westbury, Burr. S. C. 470. A person was bound apprentice to a man residing at Westbury, but whose settlement was at Harpbefore the execu- tree, a neighbouring parish. After the apprentice had served twenty-two days, the master obtained a certificate from Harptree, and delivered it to the overseers at Westbury; and the apprentice served there further with his master for three years. The question was, Whether the apprentice hereby tinues three years gained a settlement in Westbury?-By the Court: Before the act, the serving under an apprenticeship to a certificated man for forty days in the parish where the master lived, would have gained a settlement to the apprentice. But the act says, that if any person shall be bound apprentice by indenture, to any person residing under a certificate, he shall not thereby gain a settlement. Now, here is no service for forty days, under an apprenticeship to a master who did not reside in this parish under a certificate; therefore, the apprentice in this parish did not gain a settlement. But it would have been otherwise, if he had served forty days before his master became certificated. Apprentice bound and serving twenty-two days tion of a certifi cate, gains no settlement, though he con after. Apprentice to a man who had a certificate, but which was not Rex v. Wensley, 5 T. R. 154. The pauper was bound apprentice to R. Hallam, of Chesterfield, with whom he continued two years. Before the pauper was bound to Hallam, the overseer of Chesterfield told Hallam he delivered till after must procure a certificate, or they would remove him; he accordingly, before the apprentice ship, may gain a settlement by such apprenticeship. such binding of the pauper, procured a certificate from Chaddesden, directed to Chesterfield, but nothing further passed between Hallam and the overseers of Chesterfield, respecting the certificate, after their first requisition to him to procure one; he therefore, not being again called upon, did not deliver the certificate to the overseers of Chesterfield, and it remained in his hands, without mention or further notice, during the whole time that the pauper served him as his apprentice, at Chesterfield; but some time after the pauper left Hallam, the certificate was delivered by Hallam to the overseers of Chesterfield.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. We cannot depart from the express and positive words of the act, which are decisive of this question. In the construction of some statutes, the courts have thought, from considering the context and the words of it, that some particular words are merely directory; but there is nothing in this statute to shew that the words commented upon should be construed to be directory only. The statute says, expressly, that "if any person shall come into any parish, &c., he shall, at the same time, procure, bring, and deliver to the churchwardens, &c., of the parish where such person shall come to inhabit, a certificate, &c.; the act therefore requires a delivery at the time when the pauper goes into the certificated parish; and it is essential to the interest of that parish that it should be delivered, as the withholding it from them for a time may be the means of introducing frauds. Rex v. Buckingham only decided, that a certificate, though not delivered, was an acknowledgment by the parish, granting it that the pauper was settled with them when it was given, but it did not determine that it prevented the pauper gaining a settlement in the certificated parish, after it was granted. Both orders quashed. (Twelfthly)—Of Settlement by Acknowledgment; viz. by Relief. (a) It is a presumption of law, that a parish will not extend relief to a pauper, at least when out of such parish, unless it is under an obligation to do so, by the pauper being settled in such parish. Wherever, therefore, such relief has been afforded, except in the case of casual poor, it has been considered to be an acknowledgment, that the pauper is settled in that parish, and supersedes the necessity of any other proof on the subject. Whether the parish institutes any inquiry as to the settlement, at the time, or has the means of ascertaining the fact, is not very material, if the relief be given in a manner, and under circumstances which fairly lead to the conclusion, that it was given because it was felt and believed that the pauper was settled in such parish. At the same time, the parish is not thereby absolutely precluded and estopped from disputing the settlement, as the fact of giving relief, only shews the opinion of the parish that the pauper was settled with them. It has been supposed, that the mere circumstance of parish officers having relieved a pauper in their parish, affords primâ facie evidence that he was settled there; but the rule is now clearly otherwise, and the affording such relief is now considered as no evidence whatever against the parish (see Rex v. Coleorton, 1 B. & A. 25, post, 701); but affording relief to a pauper out of the parish, is evidence against such parish (Rex v. Edwinstowe, 8 B. § C. 671, post, 703). Twelfthly, Of settlement by acknowledg ment, &c. The bare fact of while in a parish Rex v. Chadderton, 2 East, 27. Removal of John Buckley, from Little Bolton to Chadderton, confirmed. Case: The pauper, when he buried his first wife, applied to, and received relief from, the overseers of Chadderton, and the pauper's mother being with child of a bastard, some few years after his father's death, went from another township to Chadderton, to lie in there, and "as the pauper had heard from his mother," who has been dead some years, she was relieved there by Chadderton. This hearsay evidence was objected to, but received.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. The hearsay from the pau- Hearsay no eviper's mother is no evidence at all of any fact, and then the only fact applicable to the settlement in C. is, that when the pauper buried his first wife, he received relief there from the overseers: but the bare fact of his receiving such relief is no evidence of a settlement, as they might have been relieved as casual poor. If the paupers were in want of relief while they were in C., the overseers were bound to give it, whether the paupers were settled there or elsewhere; and by the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, they could not have been removed till they were actually chargeable. Case remitted. Rex v. Chatham, 8 East, 498. Removal of Sally Burgoyne, widow, from Ashford to Chatham, confirmed. Case: The pauper was married to Robert Burgoyne in Clerkenwell. A considerable time after their marriage, her husband went to live at Chatham. Her husband more than once received relief from Chatham: he was at one time a fortnight, at another a longer period in the workhouse of that parish, on account of illness; and he died in that workhouse, and was buried at the expence of the parish. During all these times of relief he was resident in that parish.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. On subjects of this sort, it is important there should be one uniform rule, as far as is consistent with law: and the rule having been laid down by Lord Kenyon, in Rex v. Chadderton, that the bare fact of giving relief to a pauper within the parish, was no evidence of his settlement there, because it might be given to him as casual poor, it is proper to abide by it. In that case, indeed, the relief was only administered once; and it becomes necessary to consider, whether its having been administered more than once, or several times, alters the case, and differs this in substance from the other; for each instance in itself might not be evidence of the settlement, and yet it dence of any fact. Relief given a pauper resident (a) See division of the subject, ante, 662. Twelfthly, Of settlement by acknowledg ment, &c. The fact of a poor child being first found in a parti cular parish, is no evidence of his having been born there; and his being main. tained by that parish for several years, and after ly relieved by them for several weeks together, does not amount either to an admission, or to conclusive evidence, of his being settled there. Semble, to a pauper is no evidence of his being settled in the relieving parish. might be difficult to say that several instances might not furnish the conclusion. At the same time, however, it is to be observed, that though the relief were given for any length of time, the inference may either be, that the party receiving was a settled inhabitant, or that his settlement could not be known. But that would bring it to an alternative case, on which the sessions might draw their own conclusion, and the difficulty would still exist. Upon the whole, therefore, it appears to me, as the better rule to adopt, that it does not amount to evidence of the settlement. And there would be great impolicy in allowing it to have any weight; for if the parish officers, by giving relief to a pauper, were to be making evidence against themselves, as to his settlement in their parish, it would make them perform their duty to casual poor with great reluctance. And, therefore, it is more consonant to humanity and policy, and to the rule of law laid down by Lord Kenyon, to say at once, that it is no evidence of the settlement, than to leave it as a matter of inference in each case. Order of sessions quashed. Rex v. Trowbridge, 7 B. & C. 252; 1 M. & R. 7; 1 M. & R. Mag. Ca. 71. Order of removal of Matthew Acorn, &c., from Trowbridge to Chatham, quashed. Case: The pauper's first recollections were, of his being in the workhouse at Chatham. He supposed he might be then about four or five years old. He never knew his father, and his mother was not in the workhouse with him. He staid in the workhouse till he was thirteen or fourteen, when he entered on board a man of war, and served in various ships till 1814. He then went to Trowbridge, and married there. Being out of work wards occasional at Trowbridge, he went with his wife to the workhouse at Chatham, where he stayed more than three weeks, during which time he was maintained there by the parish of Chatham; and, on going away, was furnished by the parish officers of Chatham with 17. in money, and a pair of shoes for him and his wife, to return to Trowbridge. He returned, and remained there about ten years, when, being again out of work, he went to Chatham again, with his wife and family, where he again stayed about three weeks in the workhouse; and while there was again maintained by Chatham, and received 17. that relief given in money, and a pair of shoes for him, his wife, and each of his children, and provisions to return to Trowbridge; at the same time he was desired by the Chatham overseers not to return to Chatham again, without an order or a pass. He then returned to Trowbridge, at which place he was afterwards relieved, and thereupon removed, by order of the magistrates, to Chatham. The parish registers of Chatham were searched by the pauper, but no entry was found of his baptism, nor of any persons bearing his name.--Bayley, S. If the decision in the case of Rex v. Chatham is law, which seems not to be denied, relief is no evidence of a settlement in the relieving parish; and then the sessions could not act upon the evidence of the relief by Chatham, and have come to the right conclusion, in holding that there was no proof of the pauper's being settled at Chatham. It does not, however, appear to me in the present case necessary to say, the giving relief within a parish may or may not, under certain circumstances, be evidence from which the sessions may conclude, that the party so relieved was settled in the relieving parish; because, admitting that there was some evidence of a settlement at Chatham, the effect of that evidence was a question for the sessions to decide: and as they have decided it, and the facts of the case do not, in my opinion, shew that their decision was wrong, I think we ought not to interfere to disturb it. The pauper is first found in the workhouse at Chatham. By what means he came there does not appear. Until they could ascertain that he had a settlement elsewhere, the parish officers of Chatham were bound to maintain him, and relief given under such circumstances is no evidence, or at least not conclusive evidence, of his being settled there. In process of time, the pauper became settled at Trowbridge, and received relief from that parish. He afterwards revisited Chatham; but how did the officers of Chatham then act? They relieved him, undoubtedly, and supplied him with money, provisions, and clothes; but for what purpose? For the purpose of returning him to Trowbridge, and at the same time telling him not to come to Chatham again without an order or a pass. I think it is impossible to say, that relief given by Chatham, under such Twelfthly, Of settlement by acknowledg ment, &c. circumstances, and for such a purpose, was relief given to the pauper in Trowbridge, or was any admission that he was settled and belonged to Chatham; if it had been, it would have been conclusive against the latter parish; but as it seems to me, it had no such effect. I cannot concur in the argument, that the mere fact of a pauper being first found in a particular parish, is presumptive evidence of his having been born there; and if the cases that have been referred to, go that length, I, for one, must be allowed to doubt their authority. Upon the whole view of this case, I am of opinion that the sessions have come to a right conclusion. Holroyd and Littledale, Js., concurred. Order of sessions confirmed. Rex v. Coleorton, 1 B. & A. 25. Upon appeal against an order of justices removing Joseph Allen, his wife and children, from the parish or township of Merevale in Leicestershire, to the parish or township of Coleorton, in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. The pauper's father died when the pauper was seven years of age, and left him residing with his mother in the parish of Coleorton, where, after her husband's death, she and several of her children were relieved during a long period, and while resident in the said parish. During this time, also, one of the children (the pauper's brother) was bound out by the parish of Coleorton, into a third parish. But throughout the whole of the above time, the mother of the pauper, with her children, received relief from the parish of Thringstone, whilst they were resident (as before mentioned) in Coleorton; and the pauper's mother having died in that parish, was buried there at the expence of the parish of Thringstone. Upon this evidence, the court of quarter sessions, being of opinion that the relief by the parish of Coleorton preponderated over the relief by Thringstone, confirmed the order of removal.-Humphrey, in support of the order. This was a question of fact for the sessions, and they have held, that the relief given by Coleorton to the pauper, while resident there, was an acknowledgment of his being settled in that parish. The point now raised is, whether they had any evidence before them to support this judgment. In Rex v. Yarwell, a decision was upheld, which went quite as far as the present, this Court considering the matter to be one purely for the sessions. In Rex v. Trowbridge, the Court said it was unnecessary then to decide whether the giving relief to a party resident in a parish might, or might not, under certain circumstances, be evidence of the settlement there. The relief, in the present case, was continued for a great length of time.—Bayley, J. How long must such relief go on to become evidence?-Taunton and Hildyard, contra. There was no case for the sessions. The doctrine laid down by Lord Kenyon, in Rex v. Chadderton, that relief given by a parish to a pauper resident in it, is no evidence of settlement, has been considered as the governing rule ever since. It was followed up by Rex v. Chatham, where Lord Ellenborough goes still further. The present case turns upon matter of fact, but involves a question of evidence, which falls properly under the review of this Court. -Bayley, J. If there had been evidence on both sides, it would have been for the sessions to draw their own conclusion, and I should not be inclined so disturb it. But if there is evidence on one side, and the sessions act upon what is not evidence on the other, and then send the case to us, it becomes a fit subject for our adjudication. It is decided, and I think rightly, by Rex v. Chatham, that relief by the parish in which a pauper resides, is no evidence of settlement. Lord Ellenborough there enters into the question, whether relief, administered in more than one instance, may not require a different consideration, but he concludes by laying it down as the best rule to abide by, that such relief, whether given once or several times, is not evidence. One powerful reason in support of this decision, is the reluctance which parish officers would feel against relieving casual poor, if by doing so they were furnishing evidence against their own parishes. It is true that, in the present case, Coleorton has not only relieved the family, but bound out one of the children. The sessions, however, have not acted upon this fact per se, but upon the continued relief generally; and in my opinion, the binding is no more evidence against Coleorton than the other circumstances; for parish officers may apprentice out paupers, being within the parish, |