« PreviousContinue »
the son mas hired for a year to Robert Virry, in Frampton. I lived nith him for tiro or three years. On going ouf of Vir service, he tea hired again in Frampton to Richard Clot burk, and lived with him for two or three years, and till a his father died. The son afterwards married and k child, and his wife and child were the paupers who were ram by the two justices.—By The Court. The exact cin stances of this ca<e have not occurred before, though the; ciple of desertion, by long disuse, is to be found in u ■ Taunton. But here there was no faith given by the parts Frampton to the certificate, as to Samuel, whom they i heard of till he came there as an emancipated person. The seems to roe much stronger than that of Taunton. Doug. &vo. ed. 417. Cold. Cas. 77.
So in the K. v. Neicington, Tr. 26 Geo. 3, John S with his wife, and five children, were removed from A"«b» to Mcrsham.—The Sessions, on appeal, quashed that • and stated the following case: 'The father of the paupe 'sided at Nezcington about four years, under a certificate 'Mcrsham, during which time the pauper was bora :' the then moved with his whole family to the hundred of li; tant about nine miles from Nezcington, and staid there '■: years; and from thence also moved with his whole fan Strood, distant eight miles fr»m Nezcington, where he Cod about four years, when he died there. 'The pauper, 'a year after the father's death, went to Nezcington, ss<
* hired himself (being unmarried) as a servant for a yea 'lived in' the said parish of Neuington the whole- of t 'year under the said hiring, and, at the expiration of 1 'year continued with the same master for another ywar.
* said parish of Nexcington, as a yearly servant;' and tht with the minister of Nezcington parish as a yearly servant years, and never gained a settlement elsewhere.—I Mansfield Ch. J. It is admitted, that there may exist a which a certificate shall be considered as functus officio. 1 Court ought to draw a line, in doing which it -will be I to consider what is the nature of a certificate. It seen that a certificate by the parish from which the pauper another, ' is an indemnity to that other parish from thi 4 quences of permitting him to reside there;' therefon done its office the moment that residence is permanent: j end. A temporary absence for a particular purpose discharge it; but when the pauper has left the certtnc rish for years, and neither party has had any reliance s certificate, then it has done its duty, and has no Ion operatiou. In the present case the pauper had left tin cated parish for six years, without any intention of retot which it is manifest that the certificate was discharged J. agreed.—Ashhurst J. also concurred, and said, it is ly desirable, for the sake of the public, that some -cert should be established, which I think should be this: 'intention of a certificate is only to indemnify the f < which ids given daring the residence of the pauper, whenever <ite leaves the certificated parish without any intention of re. 'turning, the certificate should be taken to be at an end.'— Buller J. likewise concurred, and said, that ' in all cases when'ever a pauper returns to the parish again, they should re1 quire from him a new certificate, and anew indemnity.'— Order of sessions affirmed. 1 Term R:p. 351.
So in the K. v. St. Michael's in Coventry, Ml. 31 Geo. S, in 1754, the pauper's father, with his family, came to reside in the larish of St. Michael, under a certificate from the parish o!St. Sepulchre, and resided there three years: he then quitted the parish of St. Michael, and went with his family lnt.j the slid parish of St. Sepulchre, and took a house, where he resided for two years and upwards, during which time the pan. pernasborn: then the father with his family, returned again to.St. Michael's, and staid there till the latter end of the year1 17S7; and then went back with his family to St. Sepulchre; look lodgings in tiiat parish, and polled at the general election t Northampton, lie afterwards removed to another house in ittsame. parish, where he continued (ill 17^0: the pauper's 'ttherand his family then returned to Si. Michael's, and staid tkre till 1770: 'during the last residence in St. Michael's, the [Super was bound an apprentice to his father:' soon after 1776, ' the pauper's lather took the pauper with him, and went 'fcck to Northampton,' and was followed in a few weeks by !«> rife, who sent his goods after him, * to the parish of ASl 'Swirfsin Northampton, where they lived six months, and 'workid as a wuaver, and the pauper resided with them:' the pauper's father then removed with his family into the parish of St. Peter ia Northampton, and ' the pauper resided in (hat 'parish more thau forty days.' The pauper's lather, w ith his family, left Northampton in 1777, and went back o St. Mi(haeCs, and ' the pauper afterwards resided with his father, 'under the indentures of apprenticeship, upwards of one year '*n St. Michael't.—The Sessions were unanimously of opinion, liatlhe settlement of the pauper was in the parish of St. Mi. (had.—It being moved to quash the order of sessions, it was cimtended, that the mere circumstance of going away !rora tha ttruacated parish, is not sufficient to put an end to the eerti. Snte; and that (he man himself returning to the certificated parih at three different times, shewed that he always considered it ■ force.—But by lord Kent/on Ch. J. From the concluding Part of tiie case, 'that the Court of Sessions were unanimously 'ufopinion, that the settlement of the pauper is m the parish 'ofi'i, Miduisl,',this inference is to be drawn, namely, that ttfjasuces found the hw upon this subject so perfectly settled 11 tins case of the K. v. Nevington, that they thought it ou^ht lotto bidisiurbed: and 1 pertectly agree with them: in that f»eit was sett)ed, that 'a voluntary removal from the certu 'irated parish, not indeed for a temporary purpose only, Ire residence thvre is permanently at an end, ue.' A mere temporary rc« jnoval I understand to be when the person goes from the certificated parish to make a visit elsewhere, or on occasional bu. siness, leaving his family liehsnd hira in that parish,, as b»;mg the place of his domicile; but * in thiis case tfi,e paoper'j fa.
* ther went, faking aTl his family with him,' to the certificat'm.parish, where he took a house, and resided for two years; he afterwards went back to the certificated parish, a*nd again re. turned to the parish by which the certificate was granted, •where he continued three years more, making the last parish the place of his permanent residence." On the ground, therefore, thai he left the parish of St. Atichael'inot for a ternporary purpose only, but with a riew: of"; making the certificating parish the place of his Jr£'rmantnt rclrcle/iicc, ^nd not being able to distinguish this cawYrbnT" tlie A". Xcxingtor. which I wish to adopt to' its fullest extent, 1 am °6fopinion, that the order of sessions'should be affirmed. ' In this case, indeed, there is another ground ort rwhich the'order of sessions must be affirmed, for tire pauper gained a settlement in a third parish, that of All Saitih in Northampton, by'serving there more than forty days under the indentures of apprenticeship. However, I do not proceed merely on this particular ground, but on the broad general ground established in the Neaingtw case, namely, that the certificateto the pauper's father wasdis. charged by his leaving the parish to which the certificate was given—Ashhurst J. The principle laid down in the Net:ittgton case was,' that * when the party leaves the certificated 'parish without any intention, at the1 time, of returning to it, 'the certificate is at an end.' 1 Now here, when the pauper's father firrt left the parish to which the certificate was granted," ^ty 'went into the parish which had granted tie certificate,' wiiere he resided with his family fOr two years.' '' He was tJVen 'd6toi;
* cMed in the parish, and when he went a second tnncj to Sf; « Michael's, that parish should have required1 a fresh cc^tijicau>, 5 Term Rep. 616. '' * r
lint Hie certificate is not vacated by a voluntary absence, if the party afterwards returns voluntarily to the same house in the parish certificated to, and to a branch of the Mine Tamil) there residing.—Thus in the K. v. Keel, Ml. H &'c<?. 3, the pauper was born in the parish of Redicorth, where her father and mother resided under a regular certificate from the parish of Keel: some few years after she was born, her father and ther died at Bedaorth aforesaid, where she remained after t death, till she was about seven years of age, with her b;' who was named in the said certificate ; and then voluntaril to the said parish of Keel, where she remained till she mi. teen years of age; during which time she was maintained by the parish of Keel, and then hired herself for a year, and served the said year, and two or three others in the >aid parish of Keel; at the expiration of winch last service At returned voluntarily to the parish said brother's house at Be wards lured to one Thomas
: for a year, and"servedJiyngnsh,. j jar in the said parish r/vA, and was, then hire*! for and served another year, (Sins holmes in the same pa rish,, of -Bedpttrf h.,_ The m was, Whether .tbo pauper returned to thp certificated i under the Ui'h of the. certificate .'—Lord Mansfield into think, that she-returned independently and as sui ju,. her than to her old how and parish, and under the ':.—But fJ tiles J, tho.ighi the inquiry here njust, be, the certificate wnfinctu* ojjich? The fact is, that aper returns, and returns voluntarily, to the house in i she had before resided under the certificate, whichever « had belonged and which then belonged to her brother, t w»s at that time resident there uuder the certificate.' It 1 was not uncharged as to him; and there do not aj,« e to be circumstances in the case sufficient to warrant , that it was so with respect to the pauper.—Lord i am satisfied. The voluntary return to the house r, who was then resident under the certificate, had -The other judges concurred. Cald. Ca;. 14+. was also decided in the. K. v. lngxorlh. Mic. Ter, i which was as follows; v in the year 17.81, the father ptoper went with his wife and the pauper as pact of ily to reside in IngTeurth, under a certificate from : in the year 1787, the pauper then of the age. of self to a man of Erjungham, and served two years servant; he then Jet himself to another master at am and served .him as a yearly servant for a year, tards let himself from three days after Michaelmas . to the ?Iichaelma3 following ,tv another master at "»d* and completed his semcy: at the expiration of rhe returned tq Jngtconh, -iyjiere his fa1 her still resid, er the certificate,, and lived in his sa\d father's house l month, during which time lie worked as a day labour. I Brieklmdy and p,akj his father for his board: and when 'imed to Ingzzarih he did not cuasider hiw^.lf as going i view til the certificate ; at the expiration of the month -If for a year to a person |n iiigworth and lived Krvlce two years.'. .by The Covjct if, the pauper in t kid_gaintd a ytUerqcui in, a tliird parish, there would question a* (o his settlement in lng^orth ; but no ground for presuming as in the K. y. flev-ingtpii, ibandpned this certificate, for the pauper's ■.•fit atjn^tfurtfy iuu|er the certificate when the
S Term R&.rj-'X nting a second.certificate to a pauper, will disope gi*\n'by the same parish. See the A. v. 'Mn VqnJEl <:d. 71, CahkcuSs Cases, 500, and
«»$%X*} TtrJ" ^y-?1?'.
*** fcrftg add fervid tdf i year, otherwise the pauper ■Sfafcv* a iettfcrnen* w -Brute/ami.
Ltdnf bM»Mirn '•.'••'^^e»p. e»saPra.
Also the certificate is discharged by the party's coming to an estate of his own, and residing thereon for forty da s, as has been observed under the head Settlement by having an estate.
But the parish, in order to get rid of the certificate, must clearly shew some matter whereby it has been discharged, for the court cannot presume such discharge from other facts.— Thus in the K. v. IVarblington, Ea. 26 Geo. 3, the father of the pauper about the year 1736, came into the parish of Ha•cant with a certificate from the parish of IVarblington. On the 20th of October 1748, the lord of the manor of Havont, at a co:irt baron, by copy of coart-rol!, granted to him and his heirs a parcel of waste ground within the parish of Movant, upon which he entered and built a house, and lived therein for Beveral years: having mortgaged the premises for 100/. his heir at law, after his death, sold the equity of redemption thereof to the mortgagee for CO/. 17*.—The steward of the manor, who produced the court-rolls, and who was a witness for the appellants, 'never knew the lord to make any such 'grant without a pecuniary consideration.' A nd it appeared that the value of the piece of ground at the time of the print did not exceed thirty or forty shillings : .that at the time of the said grant the pauper's father was a very poor and indigent nian, living in the said parish of I la-cant. And it also appeared, by inspection of the court-books, that it is not customary to express, in the surrenders or admissions, the consideration for granting the same ; ' and no evidence whatever was gWen,
* whether any pecuniary consideration was given for the said 'grant, or whether the said grant was voluntary, and without
* a pecuniary consideration *.' In the copy of the admission there were these words, ' Fine one shilling) heriot one sftiUin;,
* quit-rent one shilling ,-' and in the margin of all the copies ■was inserted, "Fine one shilling."—IVilles J. The question is merely this, ' Whether, by any thing that has happened, the
* parish of IVarblington can get rid of this certificate?' If not, it still continues in force. Then the question is, Whether this grant, so made by the lord of the manor to the pauper's father, was a voluntary grant, or was made for a valuable consideration ? I think ' the ;|>roof lies on the appellants to shew
* that this 'was a voluntary grant. The parish who granted 'must get rid of the certificate:' and if that can only b« done by presumption, it must stand good, for we cannot presume either one way or the other.—Ashhurst J. A certificate being once given, it is necessary' for the parish who wish to get rid of it to shew some matter in discharge thereof. They ougbi then to have shewn that this was a voluntary grant, and it difl not lie upon the other side to have proved that this v. As a granl
• For a voluntary grant of an estate, and forty days residence ther^ on, is sufficient (.o gain a settlement. See p. 343, 914 supra.