is Churchwardens are also ex officio overseers of the poor (1): this office of overseer of the poor however confined to the churchwardens of a parish, or reputed parish, and has been held not to extend to the churchwardens of a township or chapelry maintaining its own poor, although such township or chapelry be a perpetual curacy supporting its own church and independent of the parish, except by the payment of a small annual sum towards the repair of the parish church (m). Many additional temporal duties have also, from time to time, been thrown upon the churchwardens by modern Acts of parliament (n). Besides the common law office of churchwarden, which is a parochial office, provision is made by the church building Acts, 58 Geo. 3, c. 45 (0), 59 Geo. 3, c. 134 (p), 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 38 (q), 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37 (r), and 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70 (s), for the appointment of churchwardens and chapelwardens for the respective churches and chapels built or appropriated under those Acts. chial chapelry of Edenfield in the parish of Bury in the county of Lancaster. See Ramsbottom v. Duckworth, 1 Exch. 506. (7) 43 Eliz. c. 2; Prid. 26, 27; Par. Ant. 649. (m) Nicholas v. Walker, Cro. Car. 394; Hilton v. Pawle, Cro. Car. 92; Rudd v. Foster, 4 Mod. 157; R. v. JJ. North Riding of Yorkshire, 6 A. & E. 863. A reputed parish, is where there is a parochial chapel, with all parochial rites entirely independent of the mother church, as to sacraments, marriage, sepulture, repairs, &c. Nicholas v. Walker, Hilton v. Pawle, Rudd v. Foster, supra. As to the Sects. 6, 7. 4 Who liable to be chosen to the These, of course, are not parochial officers (t), and their duties are regulated by the respective Acts of parliament, and confined to the care and management of the matters relating to the churches and chapels to which they are appointed; but when a chapel of ease, with a district attached, is for ecclesiastical purposes constituted into a sepa¬ rate and independent parish church under 1 & 2 Will, 4, c. 38, s. 23, it is enacted that the churchwardens appointed under that Act shall "do all things pertaining to the office of churchwardens as to ecclesiastical matters, in like manner as though the same had been of old time a separate and distinct parish;" and by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, s. 17, it is provided, that every person chosen churchwarden of a new parish under that Act shall do all things pertaining to the office of churchwarden as to ecclesiastical matters in the said new parish." 66 SECTION II. As to the Persons liable to be chosen to the Office Churchwarden, and the Persons disqualified and exempt from serving that Office. Generally speaking, all persons inhabitants of (t) By 59 Geo. 3, c. 134, s. 23, it is expressly enacted that churchwardens or chapelwardens appointed under that Act or under 58 Geo. 3. c. 45, shall not by virtue of their office, as such churchwardens or chapelwardens, be deemed overseers of the poor. And by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, s. 17, it is enacted, that nothing in that Act contained shall render any churchwardens appointed under that Act liable or competent to perform the duties of overseer of the poor in respect of such their office of churchwardens. In like manner, it is expressly provided by Sect. 8, of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 70, that no churchwardens appointed under the provisions of that Act, shall in virtue of such office be deemed overseers of the poor, the parish, are liable to serve the office of churchwarden (u), and from the cases of Rex v. Stubbs (v), in which it was held that a woman is not exempt from serving the office of overseer of the poor, and Olive v. Ingram (w), in which it was held that she may be a parish sexton, there may perhaps be some grounds for contending that a woman is not exempt from this duty. But however this may be in point of law, there can be little doubt that the courts would relieve her from the burden of serving, unless the necessity of the case required that she should do so (x). The word inhabitant has in law various meanings: it sometimes means a resident occupier of property, sometimes an occupier of property generally, whether resident or not (y). It is laid down by the early text writers, that a churchwarden must be an inhabitant of the former description, that is, a resident inhabitant, and not merely an outsetter, who occupieth lands in the parish, but doth not dwell therein (z); and the reason given by Prideaux is, because by the duty of his office he is obliged to be present at the parish church of which he is churchwarden, on all Sundays and holidays, to take notice of the absence of such parishioners as do not come to the said church, in order to present them for the same, and also to take care that no disorder be committed in the said church or in the churchyard during (u) Prid. 60. (v) 2 T. R. 395; 1 Bott, 10. (w) 2 Str. 1114. (x) 2 T. R. 395; 1 Bott, 10. (y) R. v. Clapp, 3 T. R. 107; R. v. Barwick, 7 T. R. 33; R. v. Hall, 1 B. & C. 123; (z) Prid. 60; see also Gibs. 215. 6 Who liable to be chosen to the divine service and sermon, but that all things be kept in order and quiet, which he is incapable of duly performing as long as he lives out of the parish (a). It has, however, been decided in Stevenson v. Langston (b), in the Consistory Court of London, that a partner in a house of trade within a parish in the city of London, who is himself in the habit of attending to the business, is liable to serve, although he is not personally resident within the parish. This case was decided on the authority of Brook v. Owen (c), also a London case, and was afterwards, upon appeal on a collateral point expressly approved, though of course not judicially affirmed, by Sir William Wynne in the Court of Arches; and although mention was made in the judgment of the court below, and also by Sir W. Wynne, of a custom in the city of London for non-resident inhabitants of the parish to serve parochial offices, the judgment does not appear to be based upon such custom, and the reasons assigned by Sir W. Wynne for upholding it are certainly of a general character, and equally applicable to other places. "Here is a banker," said that learned civilian, "at the head of a company of bankers, in a parish in the city of London, occupying a house in which the business is carried on, and where Mr. Langston regularly attends. But he says that he has a house in the country, and one also in another part of the town, where he takes his meals and (a) Prid. 60; see also Gibs. 215. (b) 1 Hag. Con. Rep. 379. (c) Court of Peculiars, A. D. 1717; 3 Phil. 517 (n); 1 Hag. Con. Rep. 380. sleeps.' He is at this house, however, in the city for business, and pays parochial taxes. Can it then be said that he shall not be liable to serve burdensome parochial offices? "It would be hard, indeed, on the other parishioners if he were exempted, merely because for his own convenience and amusement he has a house elsewhere. "What has been alleged in objection to this?that the office of churchwarden is an office which requires personal attendence; that the churchwarden manages the concerns of the parish, is overseer, &c. I do not, however, see why he cannot manage the temporal concerns of this office, as well as his own business, or why he cannot conveniently attend service in the church on Sunday. There are many persons who attend business six days in the week, and go into the country for Sunday; and if they should be chosen churchwardens, and think that the duty of their oath calls upon them to attend the service of the church in the parish where they have been elected, they can attend as conveniently on that day as they do on the others for their own affairs (d)." But a mere lodger or inmate is not qualified for the office of churchwarden (e), nor, as it is apprehended, does the occupation of land in the parish qualify for the office (f). To render a man liable to serve as churchwarden he must be a householder, (d) See also R. v. Hall, 1 B. & C. 123. R. v. Poynder, Ibid. 178. (e) See Ford v. Chauncey, 1 Hag. Con, 382 (n). Anderdon on Churchwardens, 182 (n). (f) So laid down by Prideaux, p. 60, and by Gibson in his Codex, 215. See ante, p. 5. |