and therefore the six children, being actually chargeable to New Windsor, must be sent back to White Waltham. 1 Strange,

186.

So in the K. v. Headcorn, Tr. 19 Geo. 2, the parish of Maidstone gave a certificate to Headcorn, acknowledging Richard Burden and Mary his wife and their four children to be legally settled at Maidstone; afterwards it appeared that Mary was not his lawful wife, but that he had a former wife then living; upon which Maidstone acknowledged the settlement of the real and true wife, but not of the said Mary and her children, and pleaded that it would be hard that they should be forced to take two wives and different children.-But by THE COURT. The parish that certifies must take care for whom they certify; and the certificate is conclusive: they have expressly acknowledged Mary to be their legal inhabitant; and the parish of Headcorn were thereupon bound to receive her. Therefore, when she become chargeable, they are bound to provide for her and her children by Burden. Maidstone, say they, were deceived: but it was their own fault or folly, if they were so; and they deceived Headcorn: therefore they ought to suffer; and not Headcorn. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 253. 2 Strange, 1233. 2 Sess. Cas. 391.

cer

So in the K. v. Ipsley, Mic. 10 Geo. 3, a woman was tificated from Studley to Ipsley in the following words; "We "the churchwardens, &c. do hereby for ourselves and suc❝cessors certify, own and acknowledge Ann Causier spinster, "and the child or children that she now goeth with, to be "our inhabitants legally settled with us in our said parish of "Studley." The child was born at Ipsley, within about a month after she came to reside there under the certificate, and it was argued that the certificate could not operate or extend to the bastard child, being then unborn. But THE COURT unanimeusly held that the parish of Studley were bound by this cer tificate, which takes notice of the woman's being then unmarıied and with child, and acknowledges the child she then went with to be legally settled with them in their parish. And lord Mansfield observed, that the woman was very big with child, and was understood by both parishes to be so; and Studley expressly promised to provide for the infant she then went with; therefore they ought to be bound by their certificate. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 650.

So in the K. v. Tostock, Hil. 13 Geo. 3, an illegitimate child was born at Tostock: soon after its birth the par euts intermarried, and after the said marriage the overseers of Tostock desired the father who was settled at Isleham, but resided at Tostock, to get a certificate from Isleham; and he accordingly applied to the parish officers of Isleham, and they, without being informed that the child was a bastard, gave him a certificate for himself, his wife, and this child, thereby acknowledging them to be inhabitants of the parish of Isleham.-THE COURT held that the parish of Isleham was bound by their certificate, and was thereby

estopped to say that the child was not the son of the pauper, and therefore that the child was entitled to the father's settle ment, the same as if it had in fact been a legitimate child. Bur row's Sett, Cas. 737.

But a certificate, stating the party to be an unmarried woman, and engaging to receive her and the child of which she was then pregnant, and all other children she might afterwards have, does not extend to an illegitimate child born several years afterwards.→ This was decided in the case of the K.v. the Inhabitants of Mathon, Tr.37 Geo. 3, which was as follows:-On an appeal to the Here fordshire sessions against an order of justices, by which the panper, with his wife and four children, were removed from Crad ley to Mathon, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this court on the following case:Margaret Cagear, a single woman, being settled at Mathon, and then being preg nant of au illegitimate child that was afterwards born a bastard, went to Cradley, in 1738, under a certificate from Mathon, in which the parish-officers of Mathon," for themselves and their auccessors, with the consent of the parishioners, engaged to relieve and receive M. Cagear, with the child of which she was then pregnant,, and all other children that she might thereafter ' have,' until she or they should acquire a subsequent settlement whensoever she or any of them should become chargeable to, or ask relief of their parish." M. Cagear resided in Cradley, under that certificate, until her death, and in 1746 had the present paùper an illegitimate child, who continued to reside in Cradley until the present order of removal, without having done any act to gain a settlement for himself. In support of the order of sessions, the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Ipsley was cited, where the certificate was granted to an unmarried woman, reciting her pregnancy, and undertaking to provide for the child she then went with, and it was holden that the certifcate was binding on the parish. But Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. (stopping the other side) said, The decision in K.. Ipsley, certainly went much beyond the former cases on this subject. -But that was distinguishable from the present case; that only extended to the child with which the woman was then pregnant, and a child in ventre sa mère, is capable of being described; but this child was not born until eight years after the certificate was granted; and being illegitimate, he is not included within the general words in the certificate, which extends only to legitimate children.-Per Cur. Order of sessions quashed. 7 Ter. Rep. 262.

It was also formerly held that a certificate was binding on the parish certifying, against all other parishes whatever.-For in the case of Honiton v. St. Mary Axe, Mic. 9 Ann. the question was, Whether the parish granting the certificate was bound thereby as to the parish only to which the certificate was granted or concluded as to all parishes whatsoever?—And by THE

* See p. 351

Couar. Before the statute, a certificate, was only evidence of a private undertaking between the parishes, in the nature of a contract; but now it is a solemn acknowledgment, like the conusance of a fine, and hereby the party is owned to be legally settled there, and that they will provide for him. And as all other paishes are bound on the certificate to receive him, so the parish which certifies is concluded with regard to his settlement as to all other parishes. 2 Salk. 535. Foley, 177.

But it hath been since held, and is now clearly settled, that the certificate is only conclusive on the certifying parish, as to that parish to which it is directed.-For in the case of All Saints v. St. Giles, Tr. 1Ann. Holt Ch. J. said, that according to the statute, the parish which gives the certificate is obliged to receive and provide for the party as a settled inhabitant, against parish which they gave the certificate to ; but as to all other parishes, they are as they were before;' and yet such certificate strong evidence before the justices. 2 Salk. 531.

And in the K. v. Lubbenham, Ea. 31 Geo. 3, the point was exprely determined. The case was as follows: Two justices Tved Elizabeth Hutchins, wife of Thomas Hutchins (who war the absent), from Lubbenham to Oxenden: on appe, the sessions quashed the order, and stated a case, whereby it appeared, that the pauper Elizabeth was married about Attenteen years ago to a man settled at Oxenden.' Two years derwards he was convicted of a highway robbery, and coudemn, but reprieved on his enlisting as a soldier: he went abroad, in ve years after that the said Elizabeth (after hearing that he was dead) was married by banns to one Ponton at Lubben. a. About a twelvemonth afterwards, the first husband re(whilst Ponton and Elizabeth were residing at Theddingthe said Ponton and Elizabeth, who were then living as man and wife, went together to the parish-officers Lalbenham for a certificate to Theddingworth, who directed Ponton and the said Elizabeth to be included in the said cate, and granted it accordingly; acknowledging the Thomas Ponton and his wife (without mentioning her drtin same) to be their parishioners legally settled in the parish of Lubbenham; and they the said pauper Elizaand Ponton returned with it to Theddingworth. Thomas was never married to any person but the said Elizabeth contended, in support of the order of sessions, that parish granting the certificate was concluded, not only as to to which it was immediately granted, but also as to her; and for this were cited the cases of Honiton v. St. ; the K. v. Headcorn; and the K. v. New Windsor. y lord Kenyon Ch. J. In the first place, without con the effect of the certificate, there is no doubt but that, cond marriage was void,' and consequently that the ent of the pauper Elizabeth continued where her first ad was settled. But it is stated, that she afterwards con. and a marriage de facto with a person whose settlement was

IV.

A a

at Lubbenham; and that she and her second husband applied to the parish-officers of Lubbenham for a certificate to Thedding worth, which was accordingly granted. And therefore the question is, Whether that certificate be conclusive against Lubbenham as to all the world, or only as between the two 'contracting parishes? Now estoppels in general are not to be favoured; they are to be extended only as far as the posi tive rules have gone; because the tendency of them is to prevent the investigation of the truth of the case. It is reasonable that a certificate, which is a kind of estoppel, should 6 protect the parish which acts immediately on the faith of it: but there is no necessity for extending the estoppel any fur ther.' In all the cases, except that of Honiton v. St. Mar Axe, the question arose between the parish granting the certi licate, and the parish to which it was given that is the onl case which extends the doctrine further; and there it is sai that a certificate is conclusive on the parish granting it as to a the world. But the reason given by the Lord Ch. J. Parke "That as all other parishes are bound to receive the paupi ་་ so the parish that certifies is concluded as to all other I "rishes," is not true; for other parishes are not bound receive the pauper :' there must be a particular parish in a templation at the time of granting the certificate. Therefore, the reason on which that case was decided fails, we are deliv ed from the authority of it. Then what reason is there y the truth of the case should not be inquired into No inj is thereby done to the third parish; no imposition is practised u them; neither is there any hardship in it. It would indes ⚫ a hardship on Theddingworth parish, who acted on the i of the certificate, and who were bound to receive the pa mentioned in it, if the certificate were not conclusive in favour aginst Lubbenham :' but that reason does not ex to this parish. Therefore on that ground, and on the prin that estoppels are not to be favoured, the parish of Dub ham ought not to be precluded from enquiring into the of the case; and according to the truth of the case it app that the pauper Elizabeth was settled at the place of her husband's settlement. I am therefore of opinion, that the der of sessions, as far as it respects the wife, should be q ed.-Ashhurst J. was also of the same opinion.-Buller J. agreed, and said, I agree that the second marriage is bad in, of law, and consequently the woman must be considered a wife of the first husband; and the question then is, * effect the certificate has with respect to other parishes b those by and to which it was granted? The case of H v. St. Mary Axe certainly goes the length of saying, the conclusive as to all the world against the parish grasti But, for the reasons given, that case cannot be supported the case of All Saints v. St. Giles is the other way; and is ❝ed on sound reasoning; there it is said, that a certis only conclusive as between the two parishes. What by lord Holt at the end of that case, namely, that a certif

also strong evidence before the justices as to all other parishes is true as far as it goes; and in later cases it has been carried beyond what he meant, for though it be strong evidence, it is not conclusive. I am clearly of opinion, that the authority of the case of All Saints v. St. Giles ought to guide us, and that public convenience also weighs very strongly on that side of the question. In many parts of the kingdom parishes have a great ob'jection to granting certificates; and one reason is, lest they should be thereby concluded as to all other parishes. But it is clearly for the benefit of the public that the granting of cer'tificates should be encouraged;' because by that means a pau. per is enabled to gain a settlement in another parish, when he cannot in his own; and the more generally they are held to be conclusive the more reluctant will parishes be to grant them; but, if they be only conclusive as between the two parishes the use of certificates, which are become very beneficial 'will become more general.' And of late years this court have proceeded upon the same principle in those cases where they have determined that a certificate is discharged by the certificated person leaving the parish to which it was given. -Grose J. agreed, that the case of Honiton v. St. Mary Axe could not be supported; and he said, that the case of All Saints v. St. Giles was decided according to the true meaning and interpretation of the statute; and that a later case, which proceeds upon false grounds, ought not to overturn it. 4 Term Rep. 251.

And as a certificate only binds the certifying parish as to that parish to which it is directed, a certificated person may therefore gain a settlement in a third parish. Thus in the K. v. Petham, Mic. 14 Geo. 2, upon a special order it was stated, that the pauper was bound to a certificate man in Tenterden, and, after living with him there two years, was by him assigned over to a parishioner of Lidd, with whom he inhabited and served for the remainder of the seven years. The question was, Whether, as the stat. 12 Ann. st. 1. c. 18, says, the apprentice of a certificate-man shall gain no settlement, the assignment could give him one ?-And THE COURT were all of opinion, he had gained a settlement in Lidd: for the act had not made the binding void, but has only taken away one of the consequences of such binding for the sake of the certificated parish. It never intended to meddle with the case of a legal parishioner's apprentice; and when once there is an assignment to such an one, it is the same as if it had been an original binding: the trae construction of the statute is, that in respect to the cerfificated parish such binding and inhabitation shall give no settement. 2 Strange, 1147.

So is the case of the K. v. Sherborne, Ea. 15 Geo, 2, it was agreed by the court, that a certificate provides for the security of that parish only into which the certificate persons come to reside by virtue of such certificate; but doth not exclude a cer tificate person from gaining a settlement in another parish, in the same manner as any other person may do. Burrow's Sett. Cas.183.