Edgeworth, to discharge their recognizance to pay costs, on the ground that their objection to the order of sessions, as it was originally stated, was well founded, and that consequently the other parish would not have been entitled to the costs, if the Court had given judgment on that case.—BUT THE COURT said, that the parties suing out the certiorari are not liable for the costs, if, when the errors are corrected, they abandon the prosecution; but that in the present case the parish of Edge. worth had not abandoned the pursuit after the case was restated, but had taken the chance of the judgment of the Court being given in their favour when it came on a second time; and therefore they ought to pay costs. 4 Term Rep. 218.

An order of removal, unappealed from, is final and conclusive. -Thus in Malendine v. Hunsdon, Hil. 12 Ann, two justices, on the 29th of June, removed a pauper to Hunsdon, and two justices there sent him back by an order to Malendine, on the 24th of July, which order was confirmed upon the appeal of Malendine at the sessions. THE COURT now quashed the order of the 24th of July, because they ought to have appealed, and not to have sent the pauper back; and held the order of the first two justices good, because there was no appeal from it. Foley, 316.

So in the K. v. North Featherton, Ea. 5 Geo. 2, two justices made an order by which they removed a man, his wife, and four children naming them, to Featherton, and there was no appeal: afterwards Featherton finds out that this woman was not the wife, for that the man, though married to her, was married before to another woman, and consequently the second mar. riage was totally void; and they remove the woman by her maiden name to Horsington, and the four children thither also as bastards: Horsington appeals; and the sessions, upon hear ing the matter, state the case specially, that this woman and the four children were the same with the woman and children removed by the first order, and gave judgment that the first order was conclusive, and thereupon quashed the second order. -And by THE COURT. They have slipped their opportunity, and the first order not appealed against is conclusive. Cas. 154.

1 Sess,

If an order of removal, unappealed against, be lost, parol evidence thereof ought to be admitted. This was decided in the case of the K. v. Metheringham, Hil. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, which was as follows: Two justices removed the pauper and his wife from Metheringham to Ruskington. THE SESSIONS, on appeal, quashed the order, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case :-The pauper being legally settled. at Ruskington, was hired, on 9th May 1788, to a person of Bloxholm, to serve him in husbandry, from Old May Day then next, for a year, at the wages of 51. The pauper accordingly entered on his service; and during his continuance therein, his master's son, who then resided with his father, and assisted in looking after the farm was ballotted to serve in the militia; whereupon the. pauper, at the son's request, and with the master's privity, in

consideration of a sum of money paid to him by the son, consented to be sworn in as the son's substitute, and was sworn in accordingly, but still continued in his said service, and stayed therein till within ten days of the expiration of his year, when the militia was called out, the pauper left his service to join the regiment, and the master deducted from his year's wages, for the days then wanting to complete the year's service. Some years afterwards, the pauper being resident at Ruskington, was removed from thence by an order of two justices to Nocton; which order was unappealed from; and upon the hearing of the appeal now depedinng, the appellants did not produce the said order of removal from Ruskington to Nocton, or the duplicate thereof, but proved by parol evidence, the existence of such former order, the pauper's removal, under the authority thereof, from Ruskington to Nocton, and the subsequent loss of the said order and duplicate, and that no appeal had ever been made against the same. It appeared also that it was not the practice in those parts to file orders of removal at the quarter sessions, which were not appealed against.-Lord Kenyon, Ch, J. said, It was impossible to support any argument pou the case. The sessions have stated the existence of the order at one time as a fact; and they have stated the evidence from which that conclusion was drawn, which was legal and sutficient evidence of it.-Order of sessions confirmed. 6 Term Rep. 556.

And an order of removal unappealed against is conclusive, not only in respect to the parties removed, but also as to all de rivative settlements under them.

So in Nympsfield and Woodchester, Mic. 16 Geo. 2, a man and his wife were removed from Nympsfield to Woodchester, and there was no appeal. They afterwards returned to Nymps field, and had there three children, who were now sent from Nympsfield to Woodchester, together with the father; and upon an appeal as to the children, it was offered to give in evidence, that the man had a former wife, and consequently the children born at Nympsfield were as bastards settled there.-THE SESSIONS refused to let Woodchester go into this evidence, being of opinion that Woodchester was concluded by the first order un appealed from, and that it made no difference that the children were born afterwards.-THE COURT, on debate confirmed both orders; for the marriage being established by the first order, the settlement of the children, which is derivative, follows of course, and can no way be impeached, but by entering into the merits of the first order, which hath been acquiesced in; and nothing is more established, than that an order unappealed from is conclusive. 2 Strange 1172. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 191.

So in the K. v. Hinxworth, Hil. 18 Geo. 3, the paupers were removed by an order dated the 17th of June from Ches hunt to Hiaxworth; and by another order, dated the 30th of October following, they were removed back from Hinxworth to Cheshunt. Cheshunt appealed against this last order, but

the sessions confirmed it as to the man, and discharged it as to his wife and children. The wife and children, however, soon afterwards returned to their husband and father at Cheshunt; and by another order, dated the 20th of January, the children were removed from Cheshunt to Hinxworth. The parish of Hincworth appealed from this order, and the sessions confirmed the order, except as to two of the chidren, who as nurse children were not removeable.-By lord Mansfield. There is nothing at all in this case. 'from is conclusive.' The parish of Hinxworth neglected to The first order unappealed appeal at the time they were aggrieved, and their being too late now is their own fault. The first order, dated the 17th of June, was affirmed, and the two subsequent orders discharged. Cald. Cas. 42.

So in the K. v. Silchester, Hil. 6 Geo. 3, a man and wo man were removed from Newbury to Enborn as man and wife; and there was no appeal from the said order to the next or any other sessions.' Afterwards the parish of Enborn find. ing that the woman was not his wife, removed her, by original order, by the name Jane Moor single woman, from Enborn to Silchester. Silchester appealed. And upon hearing the ap peal, it was proved that the said Jane never was married to 'the said man.' Therefore the sessions affirmed the order of the two justices. But BY THE COURT. The sessions order must be quashed; they said, that whatever the hardship might be in this particular case; or how doubtful soever this question might be if it were res integra, yet its being fully settled, 'that an order of removal to a parish confirmed without appeal to such parish, concludes that parish against all the world,' was reason for them not to depart from it now; for that stare decisis was always a good rule, and never more so, than in cases of settlements of paupers, where it would make the ut most confusion if they should overturn settled determinations, which the justices all over England had been used to look upon as the rules of their conduct in similar cases: if she was not his wife, it might have been controverted; but as they have neglected to appeal, when they had a proper opportunity to shew it, they are estopped to say now. Burrow's Sett. Cas

551.

And if there has been an order of removal of a pauper and his wife, made upon the examination of the wife, the parish to which the paupers were removed, cannot on a subsequent removal of the wife from their parish to a third, her as a single woman,' shew in evidence that the marriage 6 describing was null and void: for the first order of removal is good upon the face of it; and according to the K. v. Ilchester, conclusive upon the question of marriage. The K. v. Binegar, Ea. Ter. -46 Geo. 3. 7 East's Rep. 377. 3 East's Rep. 353.

So in the K. v. the Inhabitants of St. Mary, Lambeth, Ea. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, which was as follows:-Two justices remov. ed Elizabeth, the wife of W. Farr, a soldier, and her three

H

infant children, from St. Mary Lambeth, to Huntspill in Somersetshire. On appeal, the sessions confirmed the order as far as it related to the wife, and quashed it as far related to the children, and stated the following case for the opinion of the Court: "The pauper was in 1784, by an order of two justices, removed with, and as the wife of, a man, to whom be- . fore that time she had been married, and who, at the time of such marriage and removal, passed and was known by the name of IV. Farr, from Stoke, under Hambden, to Huntspill; which order remained unappealed from." The counsel for the appellants offering to give in evidence that the man's real name was W. Haverfield, and that he was married to another woman by that name before his marriage with the pauper, which other woman was still living, and ready to be produced in court; such evidence was objected to by the counsel for the respondents, who contended that the parish of Huntspill having re ceived Elizabeth as the wife of IV. Farr, and not having appealed against the above order, ought not to be permitted to dispute her marriage; which objection being overruled by the court of sessions, it appeared by evidence produced, that the real name of W. Farr, was W. Haverfield, and that before his Tarriage with the pauper, and removal with her from Stoke under Hambden, he was lawfully married to another woman still living, and that after the removal from Stoke under Hambden, they left Huntspill, and went and cohabited in St. Mary, Lambeth: the infant paupers were born of the pauper Eliza beth during such cohabitation, and had done no act to gain a settlement.--THE Court said that the authority of Nymsfield and Woodchester was a direct decision in point; it being there established that an order of removal unappealed against is conclusive, not only on the person removed, but also on all derivative settlements from them. The COURT therefore confirmed the order of sessions, as far as respected the wife, and quashed it as far as respected the children, so that the original order of the two justices was confirmed in toto. 6 Term Rep. 615.

Therefore if a pauper be removed by an order of justices, he cannot be removed to a third parish until after the appeal. Thus in the K v. Chipping Farringdon, Tr. 12 Will. 3, JS was removed by order of two justices from the parisht of 4 in Warwickshire to Chalbury in Oxfordshire, and from thence by order of two justices to Chipping Farringdon in Berkshire. It was objected, that Chalbury ought to have appealed.—And by Holt, Ch. J. Sending the poor man to a third place is falsifying the first order, which cannot be done but by appeal; for the order of two justices is a determination of the right against all persons till it be reversed by appeal.-Therefore the order was quashed. Salk. 488.

* See supra, p. 429.

So in the K. v. Harrowby, Ea. 10 Geo. 2, two justices made an order on the 13th of January for the removal of a man and his wife from Ancaster to Harrowby. Upon appeal to an adjourned sessions holden upon the 4th of May follow ing, this adjourned sessions confirmed the order of the two justices; but it did not appear when the original sessions were first bolden. Intermediately, viz. on the 20th of April, two justices (one of whom was the same person tha: made it) 'called in the first order, and made another, by which latter order they removed the paupers from Ancaster to Rawsby North. Upon an appeal from this latter order, the scs. sions adjourned all the proceedings to the next following ses sions. BY THE COURT. The second order made by the two justices was irregular, as being made pending the first, and before any appeal, and without shewing any subsequent set. tlement to have been gained ;' and all that was done upon that second order of the two justices is therefore ont of the case. But the first order of two justices has no objection at all made to it, and therefore, though the confirmation of it at sessions be invalid, because it does not appear when the origi nal sessions were holden, yet the first order itself must be con. firmed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 102.

So an order of removal to a parish consisting of several townships, is binding on the township to which it is delivered, if not appealed from. Thus in the K. v. Kirkby Stephen, and Wharton, Tr. 10 Geo. 3, it appeared that the parish of Kirkby Stephen is a large parish, consisting of ten different townships, who maintain their respective poor, and have se parate overseers. The township of Kirkby Stephen, and the township of Wharton, are two of these ten townships. The pauper was removed from Newport by an original order directed to the officers of the parish of Kirkby Stephen, adjudging his settlement to be in that parish, and removing him to that parish; and he was brought, together with this order, by the overseers of Newport, and delivered to the overseer of the township of Kirkby Stephen; but neither the parish of Kirkby Stephen nor the township of Kirkby Stephen, appealed from the order; and the pauper remained in Kirkby Stephen, and was maintained by a sister in the township of Kirkby Stephen, for near a year and a half; when his sister dying, he asked relief of the township of Kirkby Stephen, who thereupon got him removed by an order of two justices to the township of Wharton; which order was quashed upon appeal, subject to the opinion of the Court of King's Bench upon the above recited state of the case.-By lord Mansfield. The original order made for the removal from Newport to the parish of Kirkby Stephen, must mean the town ship of Kirkby Stephen: the township was as a parish for this purpose of a removal to it; the poor within the parish not being maintained by the whole parish, but by the particular townships to which they respectively belong. The township of Kirkby Stephen ought in this case to have appealed: