« PreviousContinue »
■nine it to be so, and therefore it must be confirmed. 1 Strange S44.
So in the K. T. Ironacton, Mic. 14 Geo. 2, upon complaint made by the churchwardens and overseers of Pains-Kick, that Mary the wife of William King and eight of their children (naming t'. cm) had intruded into Painmick, two justices removed them from thence to Ironaclon, which they adjudged to be the last legal settlement of the husband: and upon appeal, the sessiorS confirmed the order. It was objected, that the wife and children are removed icilhout the husband, and that this amounts to a divorce between the man and his wife.—By The Coukt. How does it appear that the husband was not at Ironacton at that time? We cannot suppose it to be wrong, unless it appears so. The supposition is rather, that he is at the place where he is adjudged to be last legally settled. The intrusion complained of into PaiKsaick is only by the wife and children. How could thejustices remove the husband when he TVas not complained of? The order is right. Burrow's Sett. Co*. 153.
So in the K. v.. Higher Walton, ILL 14 Geo. 2, a motion was made to quash an order of sessions, confirming an order of two justices for the removal of Mary Rennet, the wife of Samuel Bennct, and her daughter to Higher ll'ullon, which they ail. judged to l'c their Ixst legal settlement. An objection was made, that it does not appear, ichelher it was this woman's set. tlemenl in her oan right, or in the right of her husband; and nothing shall be iutended: now if it was not her settlement in right of her husband, the justices had no power to gjnd her thither.—Cy The Coukt. It is adjudged to be her last legal settlement; and she could not be settled at any other place than where her husband was settled: and we arc not to intend any thing to vitiate the order. Therefore we cannot Intend that the husband's settlement was uotat Higher H aiton. Burroac's Sett. Cas. 16?.
Also the removal of a woman as a vife imports that it if to the husband's settlement; and if the order is not appealed from, it it conclusive.—Thus in the K. v. llinxworth, llil. 18 .Geo. 3, two justic.l removed Sarah Grijjin, the wife of Joseph Griffin, and their live children from the parish of Cheshunt to the parish of llinxttorth. To this order there was no appeal. By another order, two other justices removed Joseph Griffin, Snrah his wife, and their five children, from Hinncorthto Cheshunt. To this order Cheshunt appealed, insisting, that the former order, unappealed from, teas conclusiveas to lliexiholefamily ; but the scssious, after hearing evidence respecting the husband's settlement, confirmed the order with respect to him, and quashed it with respect to his wife and children. Soon afterwards the wife went with her children to her husband, then resident, under this last order, at Cheshunt; in consequence of w hich, by a third order, two justices removed the Ji-ce children from Cheshunt to ILnxxoith. To this order Hinticorth appealed; and the sessions confirmed the order, except as to ttco oj tke children^ who, as nurse-children, were not removcablc. —By lord Mansfield. There is nothing at all in this case. The utst order unappealed from is conclusive. It is agreed on all all kinds, that it would have been so, had the settlement of the hasband been expressly stated in that order to hare been at Hitrcvrth. Then the question made is, Whether there arises a necesftry implication, that upon the face of the order his settleneotii there? Now the general rule of law is, that the settleneat of the wife and children must depend upon that of the tasband: 'tis true there may be special and excepted cases; as where the hnsband has no settlement, or cannot be found to give an account of it : and these would be exceptions from the geMnl rule. But, unless such special circumstances are stated, we are bound to presume in favour of the general rule. The pirishof Hinxworth have neglected to appeal at the time they were iijrieved; and their being too late now is their own fi'alt--tbe other judges concurred. Cold. Cas.11. 1 Doug. Rtp-tto.td. 46.
So in AeK. v. Leigh, Mic. 19 Geo. 3, two justices removed ■1 married woman and her child from E~ell to Leigh, in the abstaceof the husband. On an appeal, this order was quashed, liehasband afterwards returning to Ewell, he, together with l*»»ife and child, were removed, under a new order, to Leigh, *hit» last order the sessions confirmed : but, upon & certiorari, uletoshew cause whyxit should not be quashed, the SoIxforGtncral now gave it up, as not to be supported, since ^determination of the same question in the above case of the 11, ilinrxarth. 1 Doug. Sro. ed. 45.
S»«theiC. T. Toucester, IJil. 15 Geo. 3, a man and hit •wok with a certificate from Harlcs/on to Towcester: durrarfce'r residence th^re, under the certificate they had four fJnHrenborn, and the husband gained a settlement in Towcester "J renting a tenement of 10/. a year. Afterwards and in the '■Sttof the husband, the w ife and her children were removed byu order of two justices, which teas unuppealed against, from lozceiter to Harleston. Subsequent to this removal, the tishand went to Harleston to his family, and afterwards was naoied by an order of two justices to Towcester. The quesuwi was, iVliether the settlement of the husband rcat conclud. tdbgtke first order of removal of his wife and children, which «i.jf itateii her name, but did nut style her the wife of any one * '^sessions thought not, and confirmed the last order.- -It was "wed to uuash these orders, on the authority of the case of the
'.Wi'ir»or///, and no counsel appearing to shew cause both tegnkrs were quashed. 2 Boll, Const's ed. 118. Caldecot's
_Bit the wife cannot be removed from her husband to the pa^iawiiithshe is settled in her own right, though the husband IJfcRltlement.—-Thus i» the K. v.Carlc'on, Jr. 15 Geo. 3. justices removed Johanna the wife of biitwn Mac Q~cn, and their four children, from tloglandswain to Carlcton, sfati
in (heir order that complaint was made to them by the churr
wardens and overseers of lloylanchzvain. that Simon Mac (he
Johannah his wife, and their four childreu, came to inhabit
Uoylandsvain, not having gained a legal settlement there;a
that Simon Mac Otcen was an Irishman, and had done no s
in England whereby to gain a legal settlement: and "that I
wife and children are actually become chargeable to Hoglcti
swain; which complaint they adjudged to be true.—Tuks
Sions, upon appeal, confirmed that order., and stated that Jo
TijttSy father of the said Johannah Mac Omen, in the year 17
came to Iloi/tandwain, with a certificate from (Jarleton; i
whilst he resided in Holland swain under the certificate,
said Johannah his daughter was born there; and continued
live with him until she was upwards of 21: that she aft
wards took a house in lloylandsaair, and resided therein ui
she was married to the said Simon Mac Oxen; who, upoa
marriage, went to reside with the said Johannah his wife in
said house, and continued to reside with her therein from
time of their said marriage, until she and her said children w
removed from the said Simon Mac Owen, and from his t
duelling-house wherein he then lived and still continued to
side: that the said Simon Mac Oxen, from the time of his I
marriage, followed the business of a cloth-dresser, and therl
maintained himself and his said wife and family, until a if
time before the. said order of removal was made y wHen his:
wife and children being taken ill of a fever, she applied tti
overseers of Hoylantlsvain for relief: and was removed:
hushami continued tenant and resided in the said bouse, and
quired his living by his own labour and industry: but lie A..
Iriihman, arid had not gained any settlement in Jingtaodi
his wife-and children were separated from him by the said oi
of removal.'—The Sessions confirmed this order. It was
jeered that this would occasion a separation between husk
and wife; and amount, in effect, to a divorce.; and a wife <
not be sent from the parish where her husband is resident*
To this it was answered, that this woman was born at Hoylc
swain, whilst her father resided there under this certificate:
therefore the township of Carlcton was bound, by this certiti
and their own concession, to receive and provide for her and
children; and were concluded and estopped thereby tbofc
against it.-.But The Couut were clear tnat the sessions >
wrong; and that their order must be discharged. A woman rat
bercniovrd from her husband; as an authority for which,
referred to the before-mentioned case of •S'f. Michael's in 1
am! A u,mey. This it not tike the case of the husband' A
dead, or having lift his vife. Here the husband is at
* This was agreed in I he case of St. .Viehael and Sunney, Id p ante
raidts at Hoytandsaain ; follows the business of a ctoth-dresi;f there; and maintained his family by it for many ypars, till ibey were taken ill of this temporary f- ver which obliged tint to apply for relief. The parish hare had the benefit of his hwar nuw years. The man is settled in a house, and carries M bwinessivi his place. There may be no business for a clothlirssr at Carkton at all; or this man may have no acquaintance itat. He may starve there, though he could maintain his family tt llylandwain. It is a cruel behaviour.—Both orders quashed. Burrow's Sett. Cos. 813.
And although the marriage be procured by frand and conipincy, it will be good for the purpose of acquiring a settleneat—This appears from the following cases: the K. v: Ed■2tns rod other*, Mie. 11 Geo. 1, the defendants were indictrd for fiat they by conspiracy gave the husband money to nam j poor helpless woman, who was an inhabitant in the parish Q! S, on purpose to gain a settlement for her, by virtue of nthaarriage, in the parish of A, where the man was settled. It was moved to quash this indictment, btcauso it was oof armed that the woman was last legally settled in the parish o(B. to: only that she was an inhabitant there.—Tnt Court Ms), If there be a conspiracy to let lands for ten pounds a yrir to « poor man in order to gain him a settlement, or to nuke a certificated man a parish-officer, or to send a woman big with child of a bastard into another parish to be delivered there, and so to charge the parish with the child, these are eertualy crimes indictable. They therefore refused to quash uVadicrment, and ordered the defendant to demur. 8 Mod. JttWl Sets. Cos. 165.
fc> tie case of the K. r. Busby, Ea. 5 Geo. 2, the Conrt nmad aa information against the jdefendaut, who was an weaeei, for that he with others had forcibly removed a poor *«au who was very sick and near her time from one parish 'another, to avoid the expence it might occasion to the first parish if the child should be born there. 1 Bott, Consfs ed.
So in the K. Y. Parkins, Ml. 6 Geo. 2, a single woman of Studky, by with child of a bastard, was sent back to Studley. Parlous, overseer of Studkif, threatened with all the severity <-f the law to force hec to marry a stranger of another parish, yanst both his and her consent, he giving fire guineas to the tabind, and keeping him in liquor. By The Court. Saw caase why an information should not go. Sett. Cas.
S»intte Jf. Y. IVatson and Perrut, Mrc, 17 Geo. 2, the Casrfcgranted an information against the defendants, who eieriwri of the) poer1 of the parish of Dorton in tho c«wtj of Buckst for procuring one Fine a soldier, who had a Wtleaent'in the parTsn of Brill, to marry a poor woman who '^anideot, and chargeable to the parish of Dorton, by giving '«* ten pounds and a fat hog for marrying her, wherebyshe v and her child became chargeable to the parish of Brill, 1 fl
So in the K. v. Herbert and others, Ea, 32 Geo. 2, information was granted against overseers, on affidavits cha ing them with a conspiracy in producing a cripple of anoi parish to marry a young woman who belonged to their oi 1 Bolt, Const'* ed. 300.
Also in the K. v. Tarrant, Tr. 7 Geo. 3, an informal was granted against the defendant, for procuring a man marry a woman who was big with child by another man disburlhen his own parish, and throw it on trie parish to wL the husband belonged. 4 Burrow's Rep. 2106.
But it seems to be now settled, that un'ess the overseer! in good rircurnstances, the Court will not interpose to pui such offences by the extraordinary course of an informati for in the case of the K. v. Compton and Others, Hil. 23 C 3, where an information was moved for against the defend; for conspiring to marry a poor woman settled in their par then big with child, to a man settled in another, Tn order thi by to throw the burthen of her maintenance upon the to ship in which the husband was settled.—Tuc Court said, great inconvenience had been felt from the practice of objij persons in lots circumstances to shew cause against inform,: and to conic afterwards before the Court, from perhaps a i remote part of the country, and consequently at a great e.\p< to receive judgment; that these cases are very fit subjects _ prosecutions, but that justice may effectually be done otherw
and it will be more proper in all such cases to take the cur; remedy, and proceed by way of indictment.—Information nied. CaldecoVs Cos., 246.
The proof of a marriage in fact is prima facie sufficient;
\\ lint shall t.e 54 is incumbent on the party who would impeach it, to s ii>ud evidence . . , , . ■_, - . „ „r M ^
• vidi-ire i"r wnt'rcin ,l ,s defective.— lhus in the A. v. £>t. Deverevx, :!ie purpose t>t2 Geo. 3, the question before the sessions was, Whether >i quiring a jet- marriage of Jo/»iand Susannah Meredith was sufficiently pro Utunnt., .—ltv.as proved, that the marriage between the said Susat
am! .'idm was solemnized on the 7th of February 175S, in parish.ci;u;ch of St. Drvcruix, by the minister of the said rish, by banns; and the entry of the said marriage in the n ler-hook of the parish was made in the following manner : 1 Jnhn Meredith and Susannah Jenkins were married by btn but m-ithcr the minister, the parties, cr witnesses signed t-nlry, and no other entry of the said marriage wan ever n —They therefore were of opinion, that the marriage was legally proved.—In support hereof it was insisted, that Was a void marriage ; -for, since the marriage act, au entry j; perly signed is become so essential i circumstance, that wit! it the marriage itself is null and void.—But the Court vrcri a ditlcrent opinion.—And by lord Mansfield. It is not inc\ bent on the persons married to prove that the b.tuas v