-The A certificated 689. REX v. Kingstwood, E. T. 29 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 992. person who receives relief during illness from a parish ioner, does not thereby become actually chargeable to the parish, although the parish-officers reimburse the parishioner. S. C. Say, 283. to be a satisfation for a debt due for necessaries provided by S. for the pauper and his family, and for money lent. The pauper being afterwards turned out of possession by S., to whom after the sale he had become a tenant, returned to U., and was removed to M. One of the points made at the bar was, that admitting that this was an estate sufficient to gain a settlement in M., yet that the certificate granted by U. had stopped them from saying that the pauper was not legally settled there. - THE COURT were of opinion, that this being a donation from the father to a son, was clearly not a purchase within 9 G. 1. c.7., notwithstanding part of the consideration was in money; and said, that not the smallest doubt could be entertained on the other point; for though the certificate was conclusive at the time, it was afterwards done away by the pauper's residence on his own property at M. 573 CHAPTER IX. OF PERSONS IRREMOVABLE UNTIL CHARGEABLE. I. The Statutes. II. Who shall be deemed chargeable. III. How the Settlements of such Persons may be inquired into. I. The Statutes. 9 & 10 W.3. c.11. 22 G. 2. c. 44. §17. 35 G.3. c. 101. 13 G. 3. c.84. § 56. 24 G. 3. 26 G. 3. c. 107. § 131. 33 G. 3. c. 54. 35 G.3. c.124. II. Who shall be deemed chargeable. 689. REX v. Kingswood, E. T. 29 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 392.-The case stated was :- That A. T., father of the pauper E. T., was born and bred in K.; and went afterwards into W.; where he lived till the time of his marriage with A. his wife: that upon or soon after the said intermarriage, and before the birth of the pauper E., the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of K. gave a certificate to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of W., thereby acknowledging the said A. T. and his said wife to be inhabitants legally settled in the said parish of K.: that the said A. T. and his said wife lived in W. under the said certificate from the time of the giving thereof until the time of the death of the said A. T.; and during that time had issue the pauper and three other daughters, all born in W., and who lived with their father and mother there, from the time of their respective births till the time of the death of the said A.; and from that time, with their said mother, in the same parish, until the time of the said pauper's removal by the said order of the said two justices; and never gained any legal settlement therein. That about nine years ago, one of the said daughters (not the pauper) being taken ill of the small-pox, she the said A. applied to one of the churchwardens or overseers of the said parish of K. for relief on that account; who promised her she should have relief: but that she the said A. never saw or heard from him from that time till after her family were recovered of that distemper. That in a day or two after such the aforesaid application, the pauper also sickened of the small-pox, and was thereupon, as were also her said sister, who before had sickened as aforesaid, and two other sisters, removed to a house which had been provided by the officers of W. for the reception of persons paupers of W. then and there ill of the smallpox; where they the said pauper and her said sisters had, and recovered of, the said distempers, and that, during all that time, all necessaries were provided for the said pauper E. and her said sisters, by one M., an inhabitant (but not an officer) of W., who provided likewise for the other persons paupers of W. then sick of the small-pox in the same house: and that the said Mousral after A certificated person who receives relief during illness from a parish. ioner, does not thereby become actually chargeable to the parish, although the parish-officers reimburse the parishioner. S. C. Say, 283. It is only the relief that is chargeable. wards declared, "He had been paid for the said provision and "maintaining of the said E. T. and her sisters during such their "illness;" but by whom did not say. That the said A. T., during the time of such illness, rented a house at W. aforesaid, where she and her said daughter might have lived; but were removed to the house aforesaid, to prevent the spreading of the said distemper. And that the said E., from and after the time of her recovery, supplied herself by her own labour with clothes and provisions, but lived in the same house with her said mother. And that the said A. T. or E. the pauper, or any of the said A.'s family, never received any other relief either from the officers or inhabitants of W., at any other time or in any other manner than as aforesaid, save 1s. received by the said A. from the said M., about 10 days after her family's recovery of the said distemper as aforesaid; she being then in great want: which the said M. also declared" he was repaid;" but did not say by whom. So that, though the order of Sessions states a special case, whereby it appears that she was a certificated person from K. to W.; yet it did not (as Mr. Gould objected) sufficiently state an actual relief received from W.; it only states that a person did expend money for her relief, and was repaid the same: but does not say by whom the money was repaid. THE COURT held that it did not at all appear that this person was ever actually chargeable, and that she had therefore been improperly removed: and both orders were quashed. 690. Rex v. Framlingham, T.T. 13 G. 3. Burr. S. C. 748.person who asks Two justices removed S. C., his wife, and their three children, from M. to F. They had come from F. to M. with a certificate, under which two of the said children were born. The other daughter, who was 18 years of age, while she was residing in her father's house in M. as part of his family, by reason of her being then big with child, and which child was afterwards. born a bastard in the parish, applied to the parish-officers of M. for relief, her father not being able in point of circumstances to assist her. The parish- officers, upon her asking relief, gave her 2s., and then immediately obtained the present order of removal, and sent the whole family back to F.; and the Sessions confirmed the order. It was con tended that by the 8 & 9 W.3. c. 30. the parish who gave the certifi cate is obliged to receive back the person or persons mentioned in it, “whenever he, she, or they shall become chargeable;" that it is not necessary that all of them should ask relief; but that if relief be asked by any one of the family, the whole family may be re moved. The orders were quashed on another point; but ASTON J. said, that he was inclined to be of opinion, that if several persons reside in a parish under the same certificate, the asking relief by a single one of them would not render the rest removable. The certificate-act, 8 & 9 W. 3. c. 30. s. 1., says, " that the parish "who gives the certificate shall receive and provide for the person " mentioned in it, together with his family, whenever he, she, or "they shall happen to become chargeable, or ask relief: and then, " and not before, it shall be lawful for any such person, and his or "her children, to be removed to the parish from whence such "certificate was brought." And it must be adjudged by the jus tices, that such person is actually become chargeable, before they can legally make an order of removal. Now, how can the justices The poor belonging to one parish being under certifi ficates in a situated in another, are not to be considered as chargeable because unable to work. be authorized to make such an adjudication upon a person who, in fact, is not become chargeable, nor ever has asked relief? 691. Rex v. St. Peter and St. Paul, Bath, T.T. 22 G. 3. Cald. 213. The parishioners of the parish of St. P., in conjunction with the parishioners of the parish of St. J., some time since purchased a piece of ground situate in the parish of L., and built thereon a house for the reception and maintenance of the poor of workhouse the several parishes of St. P. and St. J. there. In September last, the pauper, H., being impotent and unable to work, was, together with all the other paupers belonging to the parish of St. P., removed from that parish to the said new-erected house in L.; where he and the rest of the poor of that parish were maintained at the expence of the parish of St. P., and without any charge to the parish of L. H., and all the other paupers, who went into the new-built house, carried with them certificates directed to the parish of L., signed by the parish-officers of St. P., and allowed by two justices of the peace as the statute directs, acknowledging the paupers to be settled inhabitants of the parish of St. P., and which were delivered to one of the officers of the parish of L. Notwithstanding the certificate of the pauper H., the parishofficers of L. obtained the order in question for his removal, though he had not been chargeable to their parish. The Sessions confirmed the order, &c. being of opinion, that the pauper was not the object of the certificate-act, and, consequently, not protected by it. It was insisted, that the pauper was not within the 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11., for that the pauper was expressly stated not to be a skilful and able-bodied person who wanted employment, and was capable of labour, but a man impotent, and sent in such a helpless state for the very purpose of being provided for; that it was impossible, therefore, that any construction could be imagined, that would extend the provisions of this act, which had throughout so very different an aspect to the case of an impotent person coming with all the poor of his parish for the sole purpose of being maintained in another parish, total strangers, and altogether unconnected with them (a); and that nothing could be more idle than to contend, that this construction would defeat the salutary purposes of this act; as it was impossible to raise a doubt upon the existence of these powers in the hands of the inhabitants of any number of parishes that should agree to unite. BUT THE COURT were of a different opinion, and both orders were quashed. 692. Rex v. Gwenop, H. T. 29 G. 3. 3 T. R. 133. - T. was a A husbandman, married man, and had a family, and had been drawn to serve in the militia, and was duly sworn, and served his full three years in actual service, and at the end of that time was discharged. His Occupation was that of a husbandman, working at daily wages: his residence had been for some years in P.; and he had never been chargeable: his last legal settlement was in G. The question was, (a) Mr. Justice Foster appears to have inclined to this mode of reasoning in Rex v. St. George, Southwark, and afterwards, in Rex v. St. Olave, Southwark. Foster J. very much doubted (though he gave no absolute opinion) whether a certificate, given for this particular purpose of admission into a hospital for cure, could be considered though he has actually served in the militia, and is married, may be re moved. |