And a certificate which appears to have been legally allowed shall be presumed to have been attested. For in Barleycroft ♥. Gole Overton, Mic. 7 Geo. 1, on an order of removal, excep tion was taken, that it was not said the certificate was attested, but only that it was allowed. BUT BY THE COURT. The attestation is by the statute made previous to the allowance; and therefore, when they say that it was allowed according to the act of parliament, we must intend it was attested, for otherwise it could not be so allowed. 1 Strange, 402.

"Har.

And as the statute does not require any particular direction of the certificate, it is equally conclusive, although it be misdirected. Thus in the K. v. St. Nicholas Harwich, Hil. 15 Geo. 2, the pauper came into the parish of St. Nicholas in Harwich with a certificate from Woolverstone, addressed to the parish of Harwich near Dover Court in the county of Essex.-THE SESSIONS find that the proper name of the parish is "St. Ni. cholas in Harwich," and that there is no such parish as wich near Dover Court ;" and therefore were of opinion that such certificate was of no effect as to the parish of St. Nicholas in Harwich. But by THE COURT, The act of 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30. does not require any direction of a certificate, and if there had been none, it had nevertheless been good. The rea. son of it is, because the parish by their certificate acknowledge him to be an inhabitant legally settled in their parish ;' and they are thereby bound against all the world. Burrow's Sett. Cases 171. 2 Strange 1163.

And where a certificate was directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Holy Trinity, or any other parish in the city and county of Coventry, it was contended that the same was not valid by reason of the uncertain. ty of its direction. BUT by Ld. Kenyon Ch. J. A certificate is not a transferable instrument from one parish to another, for then it would operate as a licence for vagrancy; that is, after it has performed its office in one parish it cannot be taken to another for the same purpose, and so from parish to parish as often as the certificated person shall choose to remove himself. Grose J. the act does not require that the certificate should be directed to any particular parish; and in the case of St. Nicholas Harwich, it was expressly determined not only that no such direction was necessary, but that even a misdirection would not avoid the certificate. Le Blanc J. of the same opinion. The K. The K. v. Lillington, Ea. 41 Geo. 3. 1 East's Rep.

438.

And if one of the attesting witnesses cannot write, proof by the other who can, that he was present, with such witness, and did see the churchwardens and overseers sign is sufficient.Thus in the K. v. Ashton Reynes, Hil. 13, Gee. 3, the attesta. tion of the certificate was thus, " Attested by Anthony Brown, " his mark. Paul Jenkinson ;" the allowance of the justices was in the usual form, and the certificate of the attestation thus: And we do hereby certify, that he the said P. Jenkinson came before us this day, and made oath that he was present

'with the other witness above-mentioned, and did see the said churchwardens and overseers severally sign and seal the said 'certificate;' and that his name is of his own proper handwriting. And we do allow of the certificate above written. -It was objected, That this was not a sufficient certificate; because the name or mark of Anthony Brown, one of the witnesses attesting the execution of it, was not proved before the justice who allowed it, to be of that witness's own proper handwriting. For in this case, Paul Jenkinson (one of the witnesses) only proves that his own name is of his own hand-writ. ing: but there is no sort of proof,either by him or by any one 'else, of the hand-writing or mark of Anthony Brown, the other witness.'—BUT THE WHOLE COURT were extremely clear,' that there was sufficient proof of Anthony Brown's at. 'testation.' Jenkinson swears, that he was present with Brown, and did see the churchwardens and overseers severally sign and seal the said certificate. And this is above thirty years ago. It would be very unreasonable, that the parish who gave this certificate so long ago, should quibble it off in this manner now. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 725.

And when a certificate is above thirty years old, it proves itself, although all the formalities required by the statute do not expressly appear to have been observed-Thus in the K. v. Farringdon, Ea. 28 Geo. 3, in April 1736, the father of the pauper came into the parish of Farringdon with a certificate from the parish of Towcester which was delivered to the parish of Farringdon. The allowance of the said certificate was only wrote in the margin, and was as follows: April 17th 1736,' allowed by us, being first proved to be du ly executed, as the statute in that case directs and appoints. 'A. Heipburge, S. Fleetwood.'-The objection was, That this was not a valid certificate; inasmuch as it did not certify the afli. davit of one of the witnesses, pursuant to 3 Geo. 2. c. 29.-But by THE COURT, The act was only passed for the purpose of facilitating the mode of proving certificates, and was not intended to take away any mode of proof which existed before the statute. Now this certificate having been granted above 'thirty years, it is not necessary to substantiate it by the mode of proof prescribed by this act ;' for it is an established rule which holds in the case of all deeds, that if it be above thirty 'years standing, it proves itself,' and here it is stated that this certificate has been granted fifty years. It seems also to be good within the act. The objection, if any, is, that the justi ces have taken upon themselves to say generally that the certi ficate was executed according to the requisites of the act, without stating how; but there is no particular form of allowance prescribed by the act. And if the nature of this instrument be considered, there can be no doubt in that question; if this be compared to a conviction: where the utmost strictness and certainty are required, it would be bad; but if it be compared to an order of justices, which it resembles more, then it must be held sufficient, because every thing is to be intended in

support of it.' Here the legislature has reposed a trust in the justices of the peace; the act requires certain forms to be pursued, the compliance with which they are to certify. In this case they have allowed the certificate, saying, being first proved to be duly executed, as the statute in that case directs and appoints. Now if the formalities required by the act were not complied with, the certificate must be false; for it could not be proved to have been duly executed but by following the directions of the statute. But we cannot deny credit to the magistrates in the execution of that trust which the legislature has reposed in them. 2 Term Rep. 465.

So in the K. v. Ryton, Ea. 33 Geo. 3, the respondents produced a certificate from the chapelry of Little Ness, acknow ledging the father of the pauper to be legally settled there; the certificate was dated more than thirty years ago, and appeared to have been regularly allowed.—BY THE COURT.-It was suf ficient for the respondents barely to produce the certificate to the sessions without giving any account of it; for the certifi 'cate being regular upon the lace of it, and more than thirty years old,' proved itself. 5 Term. Rep. 259. Nolan's Rep. 237. But unless the certificate be signed by the major part of the parish officers it is not valid.--Thus in the K. v. Tamworth, Ea. 14 Geo. 3, it appeared that there had always been siz churchwardens and four overseers for the parish of St. Michael, and that the father of the pauper came to reside in Tamworth under a paper writing, purporting to be a certificate from St. Michael's signed only by two churchwardens and two overseers. -The SESSIONS were of opinion, that as the certificate was 'executed by four only of the said parish-officers', it was not a valid certificate.—THE COURT thought it a hard case upon Tamworth; but they held themselves to be bound down by po sitive law. The statute is express and positive, that the certi. ficate must be under the hands and seals of the churchwardens and overseers, or the major part of them. And a certificate cannot conclude the parish that gives it, unless it be pursuant to the act of parliament. Burrow's S:tt. Cus. 770.

So in the K. v. Margam, 27 Eu Geo. 3, it appeared upon an examination at the sessions, that at the time of giving the certificate, there were two overseers, and four churchwardens in Mar. gam, but that the certificate had been signed only by one churchwarden and one overseer. And the COURT were clearly of opinion, that as the certificate was signed by only one churchwarden and one overseer, when at the time of granting it there were four churchwardens and two overseers in Margam ; it was undoubtedly bad. 1 Term Rep. 775.

Also the certificate must be signed by the proper officers of the particular parish or place granting it. Thus in the K. v. Samborn, Ea. 30 Geo. 3, a certificate properly attested and allowed by two justices was given to the parish of Tardebigge, in which T. Allcock and R Boulton of Samborn, Churchwar-den and overseer of the poor of the parish of Great Coughton' Warwick,' acknowledged the pauper's father and E his wife

to be inhabitants legally settled at Samborn in their said parish of Great Coughton. The hamlet of Samborn maintains its own poor separately from the parish of Great Coughton; and has a churchwarden and an overseer of their own, separate from the parish of Great Coughton; and T. Allcock and R. 'Boulton, who signed the certificate, were churchwardens and 'overseers of the poor of the hamlet of Samborn at the time of granting the certificate.' It was contended, first, that the certificate which purported on the face of it to be granted by 'the parish officers of the parish of Coughton,' could not bind the hamlet of Samborn, which was a separate and independent district. And, secondly, that no evidence ought to have been admitted at the sessions to contradict this certificate, and to shew that the persons, who described themselves in the certifi cate to be officers of the parish of Great Coughton, were the churchwarden and overseer of the hamlet of Samborn, because this would be amending matters of substance: whereas by the statute 5 Geo. 2. c. 10, they can only amend matters of form. -But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. I cannot form any doubt in my own mind in this case. The certificate act requires that the certificate shall be signed by the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, township, or place, granting the certifi cate; and it is expressly stated in the concluding part of this case, that the certificate in question was so signed.--Buller J. The evidence does not contradict, but it explains, the certifi cate. 3 Term Rep. 609.

And the certificate is conclusive on the parish, although it is not delivered till after the removal.-Thus in the K. v. Backingham, Mic. 20 Geo. 3, the pauper was removed from the parish of Fringford to Buckingham.-The Sessious confirmed the order, and stated that the pauper and her father jointly purchased a copy hold tenement, in the parish of Buckingham, for 14. or 15%. And the premises were surrendered to the use of the father for life, with remainder to the pauper in fee; that the father was admitted; that the pauper, in her father's life-time, intermarried with a person settled in the parish of Fringford: after her father died, the pauper alone was admitted, and she and her husband came and resided upon these premises until his death: that on the 14th of June, 1776, the pa rish of Fringford granted a certificate to the pauper, which was delivered to her, and kept in her possession, and not delivered to Buckingham, till after the removal: that the pauper after the granting of the certificate, and before the removal, resided upon the premises upwards of forty days upon the whole. -Upon hearing the appeal, the certificate was offered as conclusive evidence against Fringford, so as to prevent their setting up any settlement obtained in the parish of Buckingham previous to its being granted: but the sessions were of opinion, that the certificate under these circumstances was not a good certificate, or such an one as they could receive as conclusive evidence; and that the pauper had gained a settlement in the

parish of Buckingham by such estate and residence as is before stated; they therefore confirmed the said order of removal.-It was moved to quash these orders on the ground, that the detention of the certificate by the pauper till after her removal, would not entitle the parish to avoid the effect of it when pro. duced, but that they were thereby concluded.--No cause being shewn to the contrary, both orders were quashed. Cald. Cas. 64.

But the delivery of a certificate shall not have the effect of vacating a settlement previously gained in the certificated parish. Thus in the K. T. Wensley, Hil. 33 Geo. 3, the pauper being settled at Wensley, was bound apprentice to a person at Chesterfield, with whom he continued two years: ❝ before he 6 was bound the master had procured a legal certificate from the 'parish of Chaddesden, directed to the township of Chesterfield ' acknowledging him to be their parishioner, but he did not ' deliver such certificate to the overseers of Chesterfield, until 'some time after the pauper left his service.'—THE SESSIONS confirmed the order, by which the pauper and his family were removed from Chesterfield to Wensley; and the question was, whether a certificate takes effect only from the delivery to the officers of the parish to which it is directed; or, by relation from the time of signing by the certifying parish, and the allowance of it by the justices? And by lord Kenyon, Ch. J. We cannot depart from the express and positive words of the act of parliament, which are decisive of this question. The statute says expressly, that "if any person who shall come "into any parish, &c. shall at the same time procure, bring, " and deliver, &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 from them for a time may be the means of introducing frauds. The case of the K. v. Bucking. ham, which was cited in the argument, only decided that a certificate, though not delivered, was an acknowledgment by the parish granting it that the pauper was settled with them, but did not determine that it prevented the pauper gaining a settlement in the certificated parish after it was granted. Both orders quashed. 5 Term Rep. 154.

And a certificate concludes the parish as to all the facts therein mentioned. Thus in New Windsor v. White Waltham, Tr. 5 Geo. 1, the pauper being legally settled in White Waltham, where he had lived two years with a woman who was reputed his wife, went with a certificate from White Waltham, owning them as man and wife, into the parish of New Windsor, where they had six children. Then the man dies, and the woman swearing they had never been married, the justices adjudge the children to be bastards, and settled in New Wind sor, where they were born.-But by THE COURT. The cer. tificate is conclusive to the parish of White Waltham, and they Ire not to be admitted to dispute the validity of the marriage;