pealed; and the sessions confirmed the order, except as to two of the children, who, as nurse-children, were not removeable.. -By lord Mansfield. There is nothing at all in this case. The first order unappealed from is conclusive. It is agreed on all all hands, that it would have been so, had the settlement of the husband been expressly stated in that order to have been at Hinrworth. Then the question made is, Whether there arises a necessary implication, that upon the face of the order his settlement is there? Now the general rule of law is, that the settlement of the wife and children must depend upon that of the husband: 'tis true there may be special and excepted cases; as where the husband has no settlement, or cannot be found to give an account of it and these would be exceptions from the general rule. But, unless such special circumstances are stated, we are bound to presume in favour of the general rule. The parish of Hinxworth have neglected to appeal at the time they were aggrieved; and their being too late now is their own. fault.--The other judges concurred. Cald. Cas. 42. 1 Doug, Rep. Sv. ed. 46.

So in the K. v. Leigh, Mic. 19 Geo. 3, two justices removed a married woman and her child from Exell to Leigh, in the absence of the husband. On an appeal, this order was quashed. The husband afterwards returning to Ewell, he, together with the wife and child, were removed, under a new order, to Leigh, which last order the sessions confirmed: but, upon a certiorari, and a rule to shew cause why it should not be quashed, the Solicitor General now gave it up, as not to be supported, since the determination of the same question in the above case of the K.v. Hinxworth. 1 Doug. 8vo. ed. 45.

So in the K. v. Towcester, Hil. 25 Geo. 3, a man and his wile came with a certificate from Harleston to Towcester: dur. ing their residence there, under the certificate they had four children born, and the husband gained a settlement in Towcester by renting a tenement of 10. a year. Afterwards and in the absence of the husband, the wife and her children were removed by an order of two justices, which was unappealed against, from Towcester to Harleston. Subsequent to this removal, the husband went to Harleston to his family, and afterwards was removed by an order of two justices to Towcester. The question was, Whether the settlement of the husband was concluded by the first order of removal of his wife and children, which only stated her name, but did not style her the wife of any one? The sessions thought not, and confirmed the last order. It was moved to quash these orders, on the authority of the case of the K.v. Hiarworth, and no counsel appearing to shew cause both the orders were quashed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 118. Caldecot's Cases, 497.

But the wife cannot be removed from her husband to the parish in which she is settled in her own right, though the husband bas no settlement.--Thus in the K. v. Carleton, Tr. 15 Geo. 3. two justices removed Johanna the wife of Simon Mac Owen,

and their four children, from Hoylandswain to Carleton, stating in their order that complaint was made to them by the church wardens and overseers of Hoylandswain, that Simon Mac Owen, Johannah his wife, and their four children, came to inhabitin Hoylandswain, not having gained a legal settlement there; an that Simon Mac Owen was an Irishman, and had done no ac in England whereby to gain a legal settlement: and that hi wife and children are actually become chargeable to Hoyland swain; which complaint they adjudged to be true.-THE SE SIONS, upon appeal, confirmed that order, and stated that Joh Tyas, father of the said Johannah Mac Owen, in the year 179 came to Hoylandswain, with a certificate from Carleton; a whilst he resided in Hoylandswain under the certificate, t 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 Hoylandswain, and resided therein or she was married to the said Simon Mac Owen; who, upou marriage, went to reside with the said Johannah his wife in 1 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 s dwelling-house wherein he then lived and still continued to side: that the said Simon Mac Owen, from the time of his. marriage, followed the business of a cloth.dresser, and ther maintained himself and his said wife and family, until a li time before the said order of removal was made; when his wife and children being taken ill of a fever, she applied to overscers of Hoylandswain for relief: and was removed 2 husband continued tenant and resided in the said house, and quired his living by his own labour and industry: but he wa Irishman, and had not gained any settlement in England; his wife and children were separated from him by the said of of removal.-THE SESSIONS Confirmed this order. It was jected that this would occasion a separation between husb 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 Hoyle swain, whilst her father resided there under this certificate: therefore the township of Carleton was bound, by this certif and their own concession, to receive and provide for her and children; and were concluded and estopped thereby to ob #gainst it.--BUT THE COURT were clear that the sessions wrong; and that their order must be discharged. A woman can be removed from her husband; as an authority for which, referred to the before-mentioned case of St. Michael's in 1 and Nunney. This is not like the case of the husband b dead, or hazing if his wife. Here the husband is al

*This was agreed in the case of St. Michael and Nunney, in p

ante.

resides at Hoylandswain; follows the business of a cloth-dresser there; and maintained his family by it for many years, till they were taken ill of this temporary fever which obliged them to apply for relief. The parish have had the benefit of his labour nine years. The man is settled in a house, and carries on business in his place. There may be no business for a clothdresser at Carleton at all; or this man may have no acquaintance there. He may starve there, though he could maintain his family at Hoylandswain. It is a cruel behaviour.-Both orders quashed. Burrow's Seit. Cas. 813.

And although the marriage be procured by fraud and con. spiracy, it will be good for the purpose of acquiring a settlement-This appears from the following cases: the K. v: Edzards and others, Mic. 11 Geo. 1, the defendants were indicted for that they by conspiracy gave the husband money to marry a poor helpless woman, who was an inhabitant in the parish of B, on purpose to gain a settlement for her, by virtue of such marriage, in the parish of A, where the man was settied. It was moved to quash this indictment, because it was not averred that the woman was last legally settled in the parish of B, but only that she was an inhabitant there.-THE COURT said, If there be a conspiracy to let lands for ten pounds a year to a poor man in order to gain him a settlement, or to make a certificated maa 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 certainly crimes indictable. They therefore refused to quash the indictment, and ordered the defendant to demur. 8 Mod. 321. 1 Sess. Cas. 165.

In the case of the K. v. Busby, Ea. 5 Geo. 2, the Court granted an information against the defendant, who was an overseer, for that he with others had forcibly removed a poor woman who was very sick and near her time from one parish to another, to avoid the expence it might occasion to the first parish if the child should be born there. 1 Bott, Const's ed. 296.

So in the K. v. Perkins, Hil. 6 Geo. 2, a single woman of Studley, big with child of a bastard, was sent back to Studley. Parkins, overseer of Studley, threatened with all the severity of the law to force her to marry a stranger of another parish, against both his and her consent, he giving five guineas to the husband, and keeping him in liquor. BY THE COURT. Shew cause why an information should not go. Sett. Cas.

-176.

Soin the K. v. Watson and Perrot, Mic, 17 Geo. 2, the Court granted an information against the defendants, who were overseers of the poor of the parish of Dorton in the County of Bucks, for procuring one Vine a soldier, who had a settlement in the parish of Brill, to marry a poor woman who as an ideot, and chargeable to the parish of Dorton, by giving Fue ten pounds and a fat hog for marrying her, whereby she

What shall be good evidence

•vidence for

Lement.

and her child became chargeable to the parish of Brill. 1 Wil

son, 41.

So in the K. v. Herbert and others, Ea. 32 Geo. 2, at information was granted against overseers, on affidavits charg ing them with a conspiracy in producing a cripple of anothe parish to marry a young woman who belonged to their own 1 Bott, Const's ed. 300.

Also in the K. v. Tarrant, Tr. 7 Geo. 3, an informatio was granted against the defendant, for procuring a man 1 marry a woman who was big with child by another man, 1 disburthen his own parish, and throw it on the parish to whic the husband belonged. 4 Burrow's Rep. 2106.

But it seems to be now settled, that unless the overseers! in good circumstances, the Court will not interpose to puni such offences by the extraordinary course of an information. for in the case of the K. v. Compton and Others, Hil. 23 G 3, where an information was moved for against the defendat for conspiring to marry a poor woman settled in their pari then big with child, to a man settled in another, in order the by to throw the burthen of her maintenance upon the tow ship in which the husband was settled.-THE COURT said, t great inconvenience had been felt from the practice of obligi persons in low circumstances to shew cause against informatic and to come afterwards before the Court, from perhaps a vi remote part of the country, and consequently at a great exper to receive judgment; that these cases are very fit subjects 1 prosecutions, but that justice may effectually be done otherwis and it will be more proper in all such cases to take the comm remedy, and proceed by way of indictment.-Information nied. Caldecot's Cas, 246.

The proof of a marriage in fact is prima facie sufficient; a it is incumbent on the party who would impeach it, to sh wherein it is defective. Thus in the K. v. St. Devereux, 1 the purpose of 2 Geo. 3, the question before the sessions was, Whether t acquiring a set. et-marriage of John and Susannah Meredith was sufficiently prov It was proved, that the marriage between the said Suson and John was solemnized on the 7th of February 1758, in parish-church of St. Deveroux, by the minister of the said rish, by banns; and the entry of the said marriage in the reg ter-book of the parish was made in the following manner : 17 John Meredith and Susannah Jenkins were married by bans but neither the minister, the parties, or witnesses signed entry, and no other entry of the said marriage was ever ma --They therefore were of opinion, that the marriage was legally proved. In support hereof it was insisted, that t was a void marriage; for, since the marriage act, an entry p perly signed is become so essential à circumstance, that with it the marriage itself is null and void.-But the Court were a different opinion.-And by lord Mansfield. It is not incu bent on the persons married to prove that the banns w

published, nor does the entry directed to be made, affect the validity of the marriage. In a suit of jactitation of marriage in the Spiritual Court, whilst the parties are alive, they are put to prove all ceremonies; but in all other cases proof by witDeses who saw the marriage is prima facie sufficient; and whosoever would impeach it, must show wherein it is irregu lar. In the present case, the marriage appears by the witnesses and the register to have been by bauns, and therefore there is no colour for any objection; for the entry of the register is not of the essence of the marriage *. Burrow's Sett. Cas.

506. 1 Black. Rep. 367.

And a marriage in fact may be proved either by a copy of the register, or by the testimony of one who was present at the ceremony. Buller's Ni. Pri. 8:0. ed. 27.

But it not is necessary to call one of the subscribing witnesses to the register, to prove the identity of the persons married; for a copy of the register is sufficient evidence of the marriage in fact, between persons of the description there mentioned. And any evidence which may be satisfactory as to the identity ot the parties being the persons married, is sufficient; as if the hand-writing of the husband and wife to the register is proved; er bell-ringers came to the parties and said, they rung for the wedding, and were paid by them; or people dined at the wedding-dinner; or other circumstance to ascertain the persons. Buller's Nisi Pri. 8vo. ed. 27, 28.

And in an action for criminal conversation, where the plaintiff proved articles between himself and his wife, purporting to be made after the marriage, of the wife's estate, and which were executed by the plaintiff and his wife, with the privity of her relations, and her uncle was the trustee in the settlement; that she always went by the name of his wife, and was so considered by the relations on both sides, and likewise proved cohabitation. This was holden not to be sufficient; for by lord Mansfield, In these actions there must be proof of a marriage in fact, as contrasted to cohabitation and reputation of marriage, arising from thence: perhaps, there need not be strict proof from the register, or by a person present; but strong evidence must be had of the fact, as by a person present at the wedding dinner, or as above, if the register be burned, and the minister

*For an action for criminal conversation is the only civil case where an actual marriage need be proved; for in every other case, general reputation, the acknowledgment of the parties themselves, and re-. ception by their family and friends as man and wife, is prima facie, good and admissible evidence of a marriage, though no register whatever be produced. Espinasse's Cases at N. P. 211, 354. Teake's Cases at V. P. 232.

But the registers of the Fleet ought not in any case to be received as evidence. Ibid.