THE GUARDIANS OF THE WEST HAM UNION, Poor Law-Settlement―Illegitimate Child under Sixteen-Power of Child A child under sixteen years of age, whether legitimate or illegitimate, may while residing with its parent acquire a settlement for itself under s. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876, and does not necessarily derive its settlement from its parent. Reg. v. Elvet, (1859) 2 E. & E. 266, followed. Overseers of Manchester v. Guardians of Ormskirk Union, (1890) 24 Q. B. D. 678, not followed. CASE stated under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts and by consent. (1.) George Ernest Neep, hereinafter called the pauper, is the illegitimate child of Emma Neep, and was born in the Holbeach Union Workhouse on October 25, 1899. (2.) Emma Neep, the mother of the pauper, is the illegitimate child of Mary Ann Neep, and was born in the parish of Tilney St. Lawrence on April 11, 1879. (3.) Mary Ann Neep married Alfred Frederick Chapman at Tilney St. Lawrence on December 23, 1881. (4.) From June 27, 1890, to September 7, 1893, Alfred Frederick Chapman resided in the parish of West Ham, in the West Ham Union, with his wife for a term of three years in such a manner and under such circumstances in each of such years as would, in accordance with the several statutes in that behalf, render him irremovable therefrom and settled therein. (5.) From September 7, 1893, the said Alfred Frederick Chapman continued to reside in the parish of West Ham, and was in receipt of relief from the West Ham Union until his death on September 8, 1894. His wife, the said Mary Ann. Chapman, resided with him until his death. (6.) From September 8, 1894, Mary Ann Chapman (the widow of Alfred Frederick Chapman and mother of Emma 1903 July 14. 1903 UNION Neep) continued to reside in the parish of West Ham, and was WEST HAM in receipt of relief from the West Ham Union from September 8, 1894, until November 28, 1895, when she ceased to reside in HOLBEACH the West Ham Union. She died in the Poplar Union Infirmary on October 14, 1896. v. UNION. (7.) From June 27, 1890, to July 28, 1893, Emma Neep (the mother of the pauper) resided with Alfred Frederick Chapman and her mother, Mary Ann Chapman, in the parish of West Ham, in the West Ham Union. On July 28, 1893, she went into service in the Poplar Union, and has since had no settled residence. (8.) On December 3, 1901, an order of the justices was obtained on behalf of the respondents (the guardians of the Holbeach Union), adjudging the pauper to be settled in the union of the appellants (the guardians of the West Ham Union). (9.) The appellants affirm that the settlement of the said Emma Neep cannot be ascertained without inquiring into the derivative settlement of her parent, the said Mary Ann Chapman, and that she must be deemed to be settled in the parish of Tilney St. Lawrence, where she was born. (10.) The respondents affirm that the said Emma Neep acquired a legal settlement in the said parish of West Ham by reason of the residence therein of the said Alfred Frederick Chapman and his wife mentioned in paragraph 4 of this case, or by reason of the residence of the said Emma Neep for upwards of three years prior to July 28, 1893, in such manner and under such circumstances in each of such years as would, in accordance with the provisions of the several statutes in that behalf, render her irremovable therefrom. (11.) The question for the opinion of the Court is whether, upon the facts above stated, the said Emma Neep acquired a settlement under the Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (1), in the parish of West Ham, in the West Ham Union. (1) By the Divided Parishes Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), s. 34, "Where any person shall have resided for the term of three years in any parish, in such manner and under such circumstances in each of such years, as would in accordance with the several statutes in that behalf render him irremovable, he shall be deemed to be settled therein until he shall acquire 1903 UNION v. UNION. Montague Lush, K.C. (W. J. Grubbe, with him), for the appellants. Emma Neep, the mother of the pauper, never WEST HAM acquired a settlement of her own. It is clear that while under the age of sixteen she was incapable of acquiring a settlement HOLBEACH under s. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act, because her case is provided for by s. 35 of that Act, and she had to take the settlement of her mother up to the age of sixteen. As an illegitimate child she retained her mother's settlement until she acquired one of her own. This she never did, and as her mother's settlement was derivative from her husband, Alfred Frederick Chapman, she falls within the last clause of s. 35, as her settlement cannot be shewn without inquiring into the derivative settlement of her mother. She must, therefore, be deemed to be settled in the parish in which she was born. That is the effect of s. 35 of the Divided Parishes Act, 1876, as explained in Guardians of Reigate Union v. Guardians of Croydon Union (1) and Guardians of Hollingbourn Union v. Guardians of West Ham Union. (2) Reg. v. Guardians of Leeds Union (3), which seemed to the contrary effect, was disapproved by Lord Herschell in Guardians of West Ham Union v. Churchwardens of St. Matthew, Bethnal Green. (4) Originally, and except under certain conditions, no person could be removed from a parish in which he had resided for five years. That was provided by the Poor Removal Act, a settlement in some other parish by a like residence or otherwise. . . .' By s. 35, "No person shall be deemed to have derived a settlement from any other person, whether by parentage, estate, or otherwise, except in the case of a wife from her husband, and in the case of a child under the age of sixteen, which child shall take the settlement of its father or of its widowed mother as the case may be up to that age, and shall retain the settlement so taken until it shall acquire another. An illegitimate child shall retain the settlement of its mother until such child acquires VOL. II. 1903. another settlement. If any child in 2 U (1) (1889) 14 App. Cas. 465. 2 1903 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 66). By the Act of 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. WEST HAM C. 55) three years were substituted for five, and this was reduced to one year by 28 & 29 Vict. c. 79. UNION V. HOLBEACH The Divided Parishes Act, 1876, took the status of irremovability created by these Acts, and made out of it a new species of settlement by residence. But such settlement is not an actual settlement, but is only conditional upon the person having no other settlement, and only lasts until he acquires a new settlement. A person, therefore, who has a derivative settlement does not acquire the settlement by residence. C. B. Marriott, for the respondents. Emma Neep acquired a settlement under s. 34 of the Divided Parishes Act by virtue of her residence in the appellants' union. There is nothing to shew that she was incapable of acquiring a settlement for herself by residence, during the time in which she had a derivative settlement from her mother by virtue of s. 35. The case of Reg. v. Elvet (1) is a distinct authority to the contrary, and it was approved in Guardians of Reigate Union v. Guardians of Croydon Union. (2) There is no distinction as to the acquisition of a settlement under s. 34 between those who are under and those who are over sixteen years of age. Emma Neep's settlement is therefore not derivative, and the pauper whose settlement is that of his mother is settled in the appellant union. W. J. Grubbe, in reply. In Overseers of Manchester v. Guardians of Ormskirk Union (3) it was distinctly laid down that a child under sixteen, whether legitimate or illegitimate, is incapable of acquiring a settlement for itself under s. 35. LORD ALVERSTONE C.J. I am afraid that I cannot express any great confidence in dealing with these cases of poor law removal, but, as far as I am able to form an opinion, I think on the authorities that the order made by the justices was right. If Mr. Lush had been able to make good his point, that the case falls within the last paragraph of s. 35, his argument (1) 2 E. & E. 266. (2) 14 App. Cas. 465. (3) 24 Q. B. D. 678. 1903 UNION v. UNION. would be well founded. If the settlement of Emma Neep was a derivative settlement, then it is clear that both according to WEST HAM the plain words of the section and to the decision of the House of Lords in Guardians of Reigate Union v. Guardians of HOLBEACH Croydon Union (1) that settlement cannot be inquired into, and the settlement of the pauper who is her child would be its birth settlement, although the drastic consequences might be that it would be separated from its mother. But it is contended that this argument altogether overlooks the principle which was recognised in Reg. v. Elvet (2), and which was not dissented from in the House of Lords, namely, that if Emma Neep had acquired a settlement of her own, then, as it would not be necessary to inquire into her derivative settlement, the only derivative settlement which would be in question would be that which the pauper acquired from his mother, and the order of the justices would therefore be good. I confess that on a first view of ss. 34 and 35 the argument of the appellants seemed to have great force. Sect. 34 provides that if a person shall have resided in any parish for three years in such a manner as to make him irremovable in each of those years, he is to be deemed to have acquired a settlement in that parish. Now if the general proposition stated by Lord Coleridge C.J. in Overseers of Manchester v. Guardians of Ormskirk Union (3) is correct, that a child who is under the age of sixteen years cannot acquire a settlement for himself under that section, then of course the respondents' case falls to the ground; but in Reg. v. Elvet (2) the child in question was in fact under sixteen years of age, and the settlement which was there held to be a good settlement was acquired by the child before attaining the age of sixteen. That is therefore a conclusive authority that a child under the age of sixteen can acquire a settlement. Sects. 34 and 35 seem to to me to point in the same direction, and especially the last part of s. 35, which contemplates a child acquiring a settlement for itself. It may be said that these words are not conclusive; but Reg. v. Elvet (2) decides that a child under the age (1) 14 App. Cas. 465. (2) 2 E. & E. 266. (3) 24 Q. B. D. 678. Lord Alverstone C.J. |