Page images

And the order must state that the pauper hath actually come into the parish.—For in the Q. r. Graffham, Ea. 12 Ami. where the order set fbrth that a man and his wife did endeavour to inlrruk into the parish; it was quashed by the Court, because the justices have no power to send a person away by an qruVr, unless he has actually iutruded into the parish. Cas. Sett. & Rem. 16.

But an order of removal need not state that the contplaint *as upon oath ; for the statute does not require the complaint to be upon oath. The K. v.Standish, Tr. 13 If 14 Geo. 2. Barros's Suit. Cas. 150

A pauper ought to have notice, and to be heard before he -The examin.i* removed : for he may produce a certificate, or give other ll0{t' •uficieat security, or shew cause otherwise why he ought not 'o he removed ; especially, as he himself, perhaps, by the re. Botii, is likely, to be the greatest sufferer; and therefore na. luri] justice requires that he be not condemned un heard. And m this case the Court granted an information against two jus. tatsfor signing an order of removal without summoning the The K. T. Wykes, Tr. 11 & 12 Geo. 2. Andr. 233. fint it is not absolutely necessary in all cases, that the patirwibould be examined—For in an anonymous case iu Com. breach's Reports, Ea. 10 WU. 3, it is said that a pauper ^jtit to have notice, and to be heard before he is removed; bulHit not absolutely ner.estary; yet if it can be, it is fit it sWdbedone. Comber. 478.

S» in the K. v■ Bagworth, Ea. 22 Geo. 3, it was objected'it the order could not be supported in poiut of form, fop that it did not appear to have been made upon proper and suffircot evidence, it being made only upon examination nf the f'.mists and that an enquiry generally into the subject mat. fru sot enough, forthatthe pauper himself must beexainined; "dfor this was cited the A", v. Wykes. But by Buller J. 'It <t»nnot be necessary in all cases, that the pauper should be ex. isioed. In that of an infant of tender years it would be im. possible. There is no such general rule: and as to the cases cited,it was an information, and must therefore have gone on ^ittrtat grounds. The justices probably had refused to hear pauper. To this objection the Anonymous Case in CowM«ti is in point. In that case Holt Ch. J. says, 4 If it can be, is fit it should be so, but not absolutely necessary.' Cald. 179.

So in the K. v. Bucklebury, Ea. 26 Geo. 3, it was objected aa order of removal, that it appeared on the face of it to be iUated on the examination of the grandmother, and not on ':-»tofihefather of the children, who ought to have been tard before the justice made the order.—Cut The Court *ere clearly of opinion that there was no objection*. 1 Term

ttrp. 164.

* See this case also in p. 16 supra. Voi. IV. C c

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

And the examination must be taken by two justices, andftosi the same that sign the order of removal *. The K. v. Wyhs Tr. 11 Geo. 2. .2 Strange, 1092.

Therefore in the case of Ware v. Stanstead, Tr. 12 BVI 3, where an exception was taken to an order because it sa« it appears upon examination before us, or one of m-Tii Court he'd that the examination ought to be before both, bi cause both are to make the judgment of removal. And 1 Gould J. The statute directs, and 'the practice is to ma * complaint to one justice, and then he grants his warrant 'bring the poor man before two justices, and then those t < justices are to examine and remove.' 2 Sal/c. 488.

So in the K. v. Coin, St. Aldtain's, Mic. IS Geo. 2, an or

of removal Mas made by two justices of Wiltshire, on an j

ruination taken before two justices of Middlexex, which I

been transmitted to the justices of Wiltshire, with an affida

verifying that it was duly taken; and this was held bad.

by Lee Ch. J. If is plain that the Wiltshire justices!

grounded their adjudication upon the examination trans.n i

to them from the Middlesex justices. Now the

which they relied, being taken by two justices of another

ty; and the person examined by those justices runiai'.niu,

alive, for aught that appears to the contrary ; it is plain

deposition ought not to have been received as eviilen

ground their adjudication upon; though it mif;i>t perhaps

been used as concurring evidence. I have olten head

clared that { both justices ought to be present at the vt'ru

'examination of the witnesses.'—Page J. I retnembci i

where it was determined that ' both justices must be pre

* and that it is not sufficient for one justice to exanui

* matter and transmit it to the other, and that other to si

* order without examining into the matter himself.' B Sett. Cas. 136.

But whether two justices may remove a pauper on r coming insane, by virtue of a former examination relative settlement taken by other justices, is not clearly settled. in the K. v. Erisntll, Tr. 30 Geo. 3, the pauper came h parish of Jcklingham, All Saints, in 1767, where he w,i ployed as a day-labourer on the navigation. In 1779 I taken before two justices of the peace for the county, overseers of the parish of lcklingham, for the purpose o examined as to the place of his last legal settlement; in quence of which his examination was taken upon oath those two justices, and signed by the pauper; by which nation it appeared that he had gained a settlement in £ by a hiring and service for a year there, and had done

* And the examination of a pauper for the purpose of reini^ be taken aud signed by the same two justices iu the presence other, otherwise it is voidable by appeal, lot this see p. S77 to gain a settlement elsewhere. No proceedings were had in consequence of this examination until the present order of remoral: but the panper, from the time of the examination being taken, continued to reside in Icklingham All Saint* fur about five years, without becoming chargeable; when he became insane and continued in a state of insanity to the time of his rcmoTal to Ertszsell; which removal was by an order of two justices, but not those by zchom the examtnaiion zeas takejt. On the part of the respondents this examination was offered in) evidence, and objected to on the part of the appellants; but it xas received by the sessions, the hand-writing of the justices who took the same being first proved; and upon that and otlnr evidence the sessions confirmed the order: b'tt they al'o iiateJ, (hat in their opinion the evidence produced, exclusive of the saidexamination was not sufficient to warrant that dctomii. nation.—Tue Court were divided in their opinions respecting 'lis rase.— Grose J. and lord Kenyan Ch. J. being of opinion, that the justices upon this evidence ought not to have removed tlw pauper.—Buller 3. and A*hh<irst J. contra.—Thus The Krt being divided, no rule could be made, and the orders con. squently stand confirmed. 3 Term Rep. 707.

But it has been since decided that an ex parte examination "writing of a p3uper, taken on oalh before two magistrates, 'or the purpose of removing him to the place of his settlement, i» not admissible in cvidenoe, upon an appeal against an order cfrmoval, on the ground of the pauper's having absconded between the notice of appeal and the trial of it before the quarter sessions; although the respondents had used due diligence, but without effect to procure the attendance of the pauper as a witness, he not having been heard of from the time, "f Ms absconding. The K. v. Seznham Courtney, Ea. 2'<r.. 4\Gto. 3. 1 East's Rep. 373. And East in a note in this case adverting to the K. v. Ei is. observes that the two judges who in that case were of opinion that such an ex parte examination ought to have been receircd, grounded that opinion upon the presumption that the I'anper was dead, or what was ad.r.itted to be equivalent, in. line. 1 JErfs/N Rep. 375.

BfltMr. East seems to have been mistaken in this poinr, for it has been again decided that the ex parte examination id' a Jaaper touching his settlement cannot be received in evidence if such settlement, although he be dead. The K. v. A^erguiliy, *K Ter. 4i Geo. 3. 2 East's Rep. G3.

And in the K. v. Terry Fryslonn otherwise Ferrybridge, •Wfe Ter. 42 Geo. 3, Lord Kenyan Ch. J. said that the punt "poll which the court were divided in opinion in the K. v. Eri\. seil has beep, since considered to be so clear against the admissibility of the evidence, either as to the hearsay of the pauper o» his examination in writing, that it was aoandoned at this in the K. v. Neanham Courtney without argument,


And although it may be said that there was no evidence there that the pauper, whose examination had been admitted in evi. dence, was dead; yet our opinion against the general doctrine 1 laid down by the two judges who supported the reception o( the.evidcnce in the former case was pretty broadly hinted; and that point may now be considered to be at rest. 2 East's Rep. 63.

Neither is what the pauper may have heard his parents say relative to their having been relieved by any parish to be received in evidence as to his settlement, for it is no evidence at all of any such act; the bare fact of a pauper having been relieved in a parish being no evidence of a settlement there, for he may have been relieved as one of the casual poor, the over, seers being bound to relieve paupers who are in want of relief, whether they are settled in their parish or elsewhere. The K. v. Chadderton, Mic. Ter. 42 Geo. 3. 2 EasVs Rep. 27. Ceath-bfd £*- But the death-bed declarations of paupers respecting their eUraiioiu. settlements ought to be admitted in evidence; as are also when they are dead, their general declarations; and if the sessions refuse to hear such evidence, the court of King's Bench will send the case back for the evidence to be heard, and a con. elusion drawn.—This was decided in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Bury, Mic. Ter. 25 Geo. 3, where Lord Mansfield Ch. J. said declarations of parties to relations are in settlement cases admitted as evidence from necessity; a necessity which grows out of the very nature of the subject, and the practice in conformity to this rule has bpcotne so very general, that it ought not to be departed from, until very good reasons can be assigned against it. Bullcr J. and the other judges were of opinion that the declaration of the husband of the pauper on his death bed ought to have been received, and he said from the awful situation in which the party then speaks, such testimony is uniformly received in criminal cases, and is consequently admissible here *. Caldecol's Cases, 482.

However if such declarations refer to a written instrument unless previous enquiry shall have been made after it, to entitle the parties to give parol evidence thereof; they cannot be received in evidence. See the K. v. St. Sepulchre, Tr. Ter. 25 Geo. 3. 2 Bolt, Const's Ed. and CaldecoVs Cotes 547, iu p. 191 ante.

And an examination taken, and an order of removal signed by two justices separately, and in different counties, is not void, but only voidable by appeal to the next sessions. The K. -i. Stotfold t, Ea. 32 Geo. 3. 4 term Rep. 596.

* But the justices are to judge of the weight of such evidence conpared with the testimony on the other side; and draw the ^ conclusion therefrom. Ed.

i See this case more full, iu p- 378 supra.

And in Munger-hunger v. Warden, Hil. 10 Geo. 1, an ex. wption was taken to an order of justices for the removal of a paper, that it teas said to be made upon due examination, without saying that the examination was taken upon oath.—■ But The Court held it enough to say the order was made upon due examination, without saying upon oath, though the statute directs the examination to be upon oath; for when His said in an order to be 'opon due examination,' it shall b«intended to be * upon oath/ according to the statute- iSess. Cm. 40.'

So in the K. v. Fisherton Delamore, Hil. 13 Geo. 2, the order was made upon due consideration.—And by Tue Court. As the order is said to be made upon 'due consideration,' that implies 'a due examination,' and therefore it is well. 2 Sess. Cm. 45.

The justices, in an order of removal, must expressly adjudge The adjudica^ the place to which the pauper is sent, to be his last legal settle- '"">• neat.—Thus in Bury v. Arundel, Ea. 9 Will. 3, the order was, , 'Whereas complaint hath been made to us, that Jacob Duckin, 1 with his wife and children, came from his place of abode and 'hst legal settlement in Bury to Arundel, we therefore require 'you, &c.'—And this was held nought; for there is no adjudi. cation of the justices which was his last legal settlement, but only a complaint that Bury was, which does not appear, whether free or false. 2 Salk. 479.

So in the K. r. Hackney, Tr. 9 Will. 3, an order removing a Woman, stating that it appeared on her oath, that her husband was last legally settled at Hackney, was quashed; because there was no judgment of the justices concerning the last legal iettlement, but only the oath of the woman. % Salk. 47S.

So in the Q. v. Middleham, Mic. 9 Ann. the exception to the order was, because the justices have set forth, that Middlehum *i? the last legal settlement of the father; therefore they send the son there, and it appears lie was ten years of age.— By The Court. The order must be quashed, for there is no adjudication (hat Middleham is the place of the child's last legal settlement: the settlement of the father is not absolutely necessary to the settlement of the son; at that age he might ha?e gained »settlement. Foley, 271. .

So in Eglium v. Hartley Wintley, Tr. 12 Ann. an order adjudges that J. S. was settled at B., and therefore the justices renwred bis widow and children to L'.—The Court quashed the order; for the wife may get a settlement after the death of her husband. 1 Sess. Cass. 45.

So in the A', v. JVestaood, Hil. 4 Geo. 1, exception was tiken, that there was no adjudication of the place to which he was. removed being his last legal settlement, but only 'We 1 order h^m to be removed to A., as the place of his last legal '"iettlement.' Ami for this fault the order was quashed. 1 Grange, 73.

So in StalUngburgh T. Ha.xhay, Tr. 4 Geo. 1, an order of

« PreviousContinue »