and clerk are dead. Morris v. Miller, Ea. 7 Geo. 3. Bu ler's Nisi Pri. 28. 5 Burrow's Rep. 2057.

But cohabitation as man and wife for a series of years, such presumptive preof of marriage, as will intitle the childre of the parties to the settlement of their parents. Thus in t K. v. Stockland, Tr. 2 Geo. 3 John Moes and Elizabe Mason, the father and mother of the pauper, being both re dent in Chardland went from thence together about the ye 1723, declaring that they were going to be married, and so returned, declaring that they had been married."From that ti they cohabited as man and wife for the space of about thin years, and until the death of the said Elizabeth. The pauper w born in the parish of Chardland, in the year 1725, and was th baptized and his baptism registered as the son of John: Elizabeth Moes. The said John and Elizabeth, for some ye before the death of the said Elizabeth, removed from Chardl to Stockland, and there acquired a settlement by renting farm of fifty pounds a year. The pauper their son, w with them from Chardland to Stockland, where he marr but had done no act to gain a settlement. The question be under these circumstances, Whether the said John and El beth, the father and the mother of the first named pauper, 1 to be considered as husband and wife at the time of his bi the said John Moes, the father, was called, as a witness on part of the respondents, to prove, as was suggested, that marriage had in fact taken place between himself and the Elizabeth, and that she had a husband then living. testimony was objected to by the respondents; and the of sessions being of opinion that the testimony of the John Moes was inadmissible, they adjudged that the 1 John Moes and Elizabeth Mason were suficiently proves have been lawfully married at the time of the birth of said son, and that the settlement of the paupers was in parish of Stocklund. It was moved to quash this orde sessions, and the objection was, that the testimony which been rejected ought to have been received.—But lord Man: seemed to think, that thirty years cohabitation as man, wife was sufficient proof for the justices to found an ord removal upon. A rule, however, was made to shew, ca but on the last day of the term, this objection was given and, by consent, the order of sessions afirmed. Burrow's Cas. 508.

And on the removal of a woman to her supposed husb settlement, the illegality of the marriage may be proved, h man himself, or by his real wife-Thus in Ilenley v. Ches Gr. 6 Geo. 3, A with her children was removed from Heni Chesham, as the widow of B. Upon appeal, a woman produced to prove that she was married to B, long befor supposed marriage between him and ; but because she not produce a certificate or register of her marriage. (it in truth a Fleet marriage), the sessions refused to admi

evidence. By THE COURT the sessions have done wrong; for the woman was clearly an admissible witness, though she could not have been so in any case where her husband was a party; because the husband and wife are in law one person. But here the husband himself, if he had been alive, might have been a witness; and wherever the husband may be a witness, the wife may. In this case THE COURT sent the order back to be re-stated by the justices, as the woman ought to be examined, and they were the proper judges of the credibility. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 81.

But the fact of marriage cannot be enquired into after an order of removal, stating the parties to be husband and wife, if such order be not appealed against.-Thus in the K. v. Berkeswell, Mic. 15 Geo. 2, Thomas Price and Mary his wife, wart removed from Berkeswell to Bollsall, and the order was not appealed against at the next quarter sessions. Afterwards the overseers of Bollsall, finding out that the pauper Mary was not the wife of Thomas Price, applied to two justices, who made an order to remove her as a single woman from Bellall to Berkeswell, where she had acquired a settlement by hiring and service; and the sessions on appeal entered into the question of the marriage, and confirmed the order. These Orders being removed into the King's Bench-It was contended, that as this woman had been removed from Berkeswell to Bollsall, as the wife of Price, the order, not having been ap. pealed against, was conclusive, and precluded any subsequent examination into the fact of the marriage.-And THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, that these two last orders were bad. A rule, however, was granted to shew cause why these orders should not be quashed; and it was afterwards made absolate, no cause being shown. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 168. 2 Bell, Const's ed. 74.

So in the K. v. Enborn, Hil. 6 Geo. 3, two justices made an order to remove George Wise and his wife from Newbury to Enborn, and their order was not appealed against: afterwards the parish of Enborn, finding that Jane was not the wife of George Wise, two justices remove her by the name of Jane Moor, single-woman, from Enborn to Silchester. Upon ap. paal it was proved, that the said Jane was never married to the said George Wise: and therefore the sessions affirmed this order of the justice.-BY THE COURT. The sessions' order must be quashed. Whatever the hardship may be in this parcular case, or how doubtful soever this question might be, if were res integra, yet its being fully settled, is a reason for not to depart from it now: stare decisis was always a good rule, and never more so than in cases of settlement of paupers, where it would make the utmost confusion, if we should over. tom settled determinations, which the justices all over England have been used to look upon as the rules of their conduct in similar cases. If she was not his wife, it might have been co::.

troverted. But as they have neglected to appeal, when they had a proper opportunity to shew it, they are estopped to say so now. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 551.

If a man and a woman be certificated as husband and wife the legality of their marriage cannot be controverted by the cer tifying parish. Thus in the K. v. Headcorn, Tr. 19 Geo. 2 the parish of Maidstone gave a certificate to Headcorn, acknow ledging Richard Burden and Mary his wife, and their fot children, to be legally settled at Maidstone. Afterwards it a peared, that Mary was not his lawful wife, but that he had former wife then living; upon which Maidstone acknowledg the settlement of the real and true wife, but not of the sa Mary and her children; and pleaded that it would be hard th they should be forced to take two wives and different childre -BUT BY THE COURT. The parish that certifies, must ta care for whom they certify; and the certificate is conclusi They have expressly acknowledged the said Mary to be th legal inhabitant; the parish of Headcoin were thereupon bor to receive her; therefore when she becomes chargeable, the rish of Maidstone are obliged to provide for her and her cl dren by Burden. Maidstone say they were deceived: but was their own fault or folly if they were so, and they_decef Headcorn, therefore they ought to suffer, and not Headco Burrow's Sett. Cas. 253. 2 Strange, 1233. 2 Sess. Cas. 3 2 Bott, Const's ed. 76.

And on the removal of the wife, it is enough, in the first stance, to prove her maiden settlemeut.-Thus in the K. Kyton, Hil. 18 Geo. 3, two justices removed Sarah Kidson; he child from the township of Winlaton in the county Durham, to the township of Ryton in the same county. sessions on appeal confirmed the order, and stated the follow case: That upon hearing the appeal of the churchwardens. overseers of the poor of the township of Ryton, against a‹ tain order of removal, &c. in the words following: "Durk

(to wit): To the churchwardens, &c. Upon the compl "of &c. of Winluyton, unto us, &c. that Sarah Kidson,the t "of Benjamin Kidson, a soldier, in his majesty's 31st regin "of foot called the Young Buffs, now in America, and Han "their daughter, aged about twenty-three weeks, have c "to inhabit in the said township of Winlaton, &c. Il e "adjudge that the lauful settlement of them the said Sa "Kidson and her suid child, is in the township of Ryton: "do therefore require, c." by virtue of which said order removal, the said paupers were removed to Ryton, and R gave notice of appeal. The counsel with the respondents s ed to the court, that the said Sarah Kidson obtained a l settlement in the township of Ryton aforesaid, when she a single woman, and before her marriage, by being hired f year, and serving a year under that hiring, in the same to ship; that she alterwards intermarried, and had issue the per Hannah; but that her husband Kidson is now in Amei

and it is not known whether he is living or dead; that the place of his legal settlement is not known, and that therefore the pauper had been removed to the place of her settlement before her marriage. It was objected to the said order of removal, and to the respondent's going into evidence thereon, and it was prayed that the said order might be quashed, as it was not stated that the said Benjamin Kidson was dead, nor that any evidence was given that he was dead, nor that the place of his settlement could not be known. But the sessions were of opinion that the respondents might go into evidence of the facts stated to the court, in order to fix the settlement of the paupers in the township of Ryton; and then, upon hearing the evidence of the respondents, whereby all the facts stated were fully proved-It was ordered, that the appeal be disallowed. Cause was to have been shown in support of these orders: but the court called apon the other side, and after hearing counsel, in support of the rule to quash them-By lord Mansfield. The sessions say, that the evidence laid before them proved that which would make the order of the two justices right; and I think, that upon the evidence, the court of quarter sessions did right.—Aston, Willes, and Ashhurst Justices concurring-Rule discharged, and both orders affirmed. Caldecot's Cases, 39.

So in the K. v. Woodsford, Hil. 23 Geo, 3, a widow and her four children were removed from the parish of Woodsford to the parish of Wimborne Minster. The sessions on appeal adjudg ed the settlement to be at Woodsford, and quashed the order, stating, That by a rule of the Dorsetshire sessions, upon all appeals the appellants are to begin, and in the first place shew some settlement of the pauper out of the parish appealing. That in pursuance of the said rule, the appellants produced a copy of the register of the birth of Mary Scutt in Asspuddle; and the pauper, Mary Pitman, swore that Mary Scutt, was her maiden name. The counsel on the part of the respondents objected, that this was not sufficient; but that the birth of the paper's husband, or some other settlement of his, ought to have been shown; and farther, that to identify the said Mary Scutt, it was necessary for the appellants to prove the marriage of the said Mary Scutt with the said Robert Pitman. The sessions adjudged, that the proof of the birth of Mary Scutt was sufficient; and that the onus probandi of the marriage lay upon the respondents in order to prove their case; and quashed the order of removal. was moved to quash the order of sessions, upon the ground that, the pauper having been removed in the character of a widow, it imported, that it was a removal to the place of her late husband's settlement; that, unappealed from, it would be conclusive evidence of his settlement; and that as this must consequently have been the only point meant to have been brought in se between the parties, the maiden settlement of the woman was nothing to the purpose, and did not apply to the question before the Court. But by THE COURT. It may be, the husband had no settlement; and if he had, till discovered, her own would in the mean time remain. You were not surprised; but could not, VOL. IV.

-It

P

or would not answer it. It is enough in the first instance. T sessions have done right.--Motion denied. Cuderot's Cases, 23

So in the K. v. Hedsor, Mic. 21 Geo. 3, two justices r moved Elizabeth Wooldridge, wife of John Wooldridge, and the three children from the hamlet of Upron and Signet, to the p rish of Hedsor. The sessions ou appeal confirmed the order,a stated, That on appeal, the appellants proved that the pauper w born at Offeomb in Devonshire. The respondents then prove that she was the wife of the said John Wooldridge; but no pro whatsoever was given by them of the husband's settlement.support of these orders, it was contended, that the appella. had made no case, a married woman having no settlement her own, but her husband's: that the adjudication that she settled in Hedsor, is consequently in effect an adjudication t Hedsor was the place of her husband's settlement; and t presumption cannot be done away merely by shewing the pl of the wife's maiden settlement; it can only, by shewing a tlement of the husband in another place: that it was immate upon the order of the proceeding, that no proof had been m on the part of the respondents: that they need not prove thing; that every thing they rely upon must be presumed, the contrary is shewn; as it was incumbent upon the ap lants who begin, to impeach the judgment.-But by lord M field (stopping the other side). There is nothing at all in case. The sessions have found the settlement of the wife, it did not appear that the husband had any.—Buller J. E the fact is contrary to the order.-Willes, J. (Ashhurst J, ing absent) concurring, the rule was made absolute, and I orders quashed. Caldecot's Cases, 371.

And the settlement of a widow, which she has gained in own right, cannot be changed by evidence that she was al wards married to a man, who in his lifetime told her that he born in a particular county; for it is incumbent on the pa where she is proved to have acquired a settlement, to shew a sequent derivative settlement. Thus in the K. v. Hensingi Tr. 22 Geo. 3, a woman and her child were removed by order of two justices to Hensingham; it appeared that the death of her first husband, she had acquired a settleme the township of Hensingham, by being hired for, and servi year in that place, that she afterwards married a second. band, who in his life time told her that he was born in F shire, but where his settlement was, he knew not; that she by this husband a son, the other pauper lawfully born in T haven. It appearing to the sessions, that the place of her husband's settlement was not known, and that the pauper gained a settlement in Hensingham by a year's service, quent to the death of her first husband; they therefore con ed the order of removal-In support of the order, it was i ed that the pauper having gained a settlement in her own at Hensinghum, it became incumbent on the parish to

See this case in p. 98 ante.