家园

ant (i). So, where Thomas Watson, who had resided at Barnsley more than five years, was, with his wife and idiot son, then about thirty years of age, removed from Barnsley to Tamworth, by an order of removal, not appealed against, made in the year 1842, and suspended until 1844 in consequence of the illness of the pauper's child, the idiot; the paupers were received into the workhouse at Tamworth, and maintained there four days; the overseers then gave the pauper Thomas Watson a sovereign, to enable him to get back to Barnsley, and promised to allow him 38. 6d. a week while he lived there; he went back to Barnsley forthwith, and resumed possession of the house there, which had been held for him during his absence by two of his children who maintained themselves; and the allowance was paid him until after the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, had come into operation, and was then discontinued; Thomas Watson then became again chargeable to Barnsley, being unable to maintain his idiot son; a second order of removal was obtained; it stated the age of the idiot pauper to be thirty-three, and directed the removal of the pauper, his wife, and his idiot son; at the trial the pauper said that he and his wife had been removed under the former order, because the justices thought we were the properest persons to take care of" the idiot; that when he left, he had intended to go back to Barnsley as soon as he could; that he should have gone back as soon as he could, even if the parish officers of Tamworth had not given him the sovereign; and that it was for him that his emancipated children had kept possession of his house in Barnsley: the court, however, held that the pauper, his wife, and idiot son, were removable, notwithstanding the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 66 (j). Even where it appeared that the pauper, on the very day on which he was removed, was allowed to return to the parish from which he was removed, upon an amicable arrangement being made by the overseers on both sides that the removing parish should be reimbursed any sums they should pay to him as relief: the court held that this was a break in the residence, and that the pauper was removable (R). Where a widow, who had resided with her husband more than five years in the parish of Mary-le-bone, applied to the overseers for relief, which they gave on a few occasions, but at last one of them said that Brighton was her parish, and he would give her 108. to pay her fare there; she accordingly accepted the 10s., went to Brighton, applied there for relief, and was received into the workhouse, where she remained three weeks, and was afterwards relieved out of the workhouse for three

(i) R. v. Seend, 18 Law J. 12, m. (j) R. v. Barnsley, 18 Law J. 170, m.

(k) R. v. Caldecote, 20 Law J. 187, m.

;

months; she then returned to Marylebone, and some time afterwards becoming chargeable, she was removed by order to Brighton, against which order Brighton appealed: the court held that if, by giving her 10s., the overseer of Marylebone intended to render her chargeable to Brighton, it was illegal and punishable by stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 6, and in such case her going to Brighton would not be deemed a break in her residence; but if the pauper wished to go to the place of her settlement, and where her mother resided, there was nothing illegal in the officers enabling her to do so, in which case her going to Brighton would be a break in the residence but as it was for the sessions to find the intent, and they had not done so, the court sent the case back for rehearing (1). But where, upon an appeal against an order for the removal of John Gill and his wife, from the city of Norwich to the parish of Tacolnstone in the county of Norfolk, dated the 2nd December, 1846, it appeared that Gill had resided in Norwich previously to January, 1841; in that month, being out of work, he went to Tacolnstone, the place of his settlement, to seek for employment or relief, leaving his wife and family at his lodgings in Norwich; at Tacolnstone he was employed by Mr. Homes, the overseer, and continued to be employed and to be paid wages by him for six or seven weeks, and lodging in the poor house there; he then returned to his wife and family at Norwich, whom he had maintained in the mean time at his lodgings, and continued to reside there up to the making of the order above mentioned, but for the four years previous to the passing of stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, he was in receipt of relief from Tacolnstone: upon a case stated, it was contended for the respondents, that the pauper's absence in 1841 created a break in the residence, and that as he had not resided in Norwich, unrelieved, for five years after that, he was removable : but the court held that although it was not actually stated in the case that there was an animus revertendi on the part of the pauper, they could not from the circumstances come to any other conclusion, and that therefore this absence for a temporary occasion was no break in the residence, and the pauper was irremovable (m). So, where a woman, having a lodging in the parish of Brighton, which she had furnished, had for more than five years resided in her lodgings, with the exception of periods of six and ten weeks, during which she was absent under contracts to serve as a monthly nurse; on the occasion of hiring herself, she had the intention of returning to Brighton, and at the end of her engagement did accordingly return to her lodgings, which she had continued to hold during her absence: being removed by order from Brigh

(1) R. v. St. Mary-le-bone, 20 Law J. 173, m.

(m) R. v. Tacolnstone, 18 Law J. 44, m.

ton to the parish of Amberly, as the place of her settlement, the court held that her absence from Brighton, though under a contract, did not constitute a break in her residence, and that therefore she was irremovable from Brighton (n). But where the absence is under a contract, and the party has no intention of returning, unless events over which he has no control should occur, this would be a break in the former residence (o). And where a man named Miller, having a settlement in the parish of Nailsea, resided with his wife and family for upwards of twenty years in the parish of Nempnett, in the county of Somerset, in a house which he rented at five guineas a year; in 1839, his wife and he not agreeing very well, he went into Wales to get work, leaving her in the house, and leaving an ass and cart with her to enable her to gain her livelihood in his absence; he returned in 1841, but he left again in 1843, and went to the county of Hereford, where he continued working at different places until 1851, when he returned to Nempnett, but not to his house where his wife lived, but to the house of his daughter in the same parish, and resided with her until 1852, when, upon his wife removing from his own house, and taking the furniture with her, he went to reside in it, and was residing there when he became chargeable; but during the whole time of his absence, Miller had always an intention to return to his house in Nempnett: it was reserved as a question for the court of Queen's Bench whether the absence of Miller operated as a break in the residence; and the court held clearly that it did, and that he was no longer irremovable; they held that the intention to return made no difference (p).

In what cases time of absence only deducted.] The above section (8 & 9 Vict. c. 66, s. 1) contains a proviso, that "the time during which such person shall be a prisoner in a prison, -or shall be serving her Majesty as a soldier, marine, or sailor, or reside as an in-pensioner in Greenwich or Chelsea hospitals, or shall be confined in a lunatic asylum, or house duly licensed or hospital registered for the reception of lunatics, or as a patient in a hospital,-or during which any such person shall receive relief from any parish, or shall be wholly or in part maintained by any rate or subscription raised in a parish in which such person does not reside, not being a boná fide charitable gift,-shall for all purposes be excluded in the computation of time herein before mentioned; and that the removal of a pauper lunatic to a lunatic asylum, under the

(n) R. v. Brighthelmstone, 24 Law J. 41, m.

(0) R. v. Stapleton, 22 Law J. 102, m.

(p) R. v. Nempnett Thrubwell, 17 Shaw's Justice, 83.

provisions of any Act relating to the maintenance and care of pauper lunatics, shall not be deemed a removal within the meaning of this Act."

As to prisoners,-If the party be a prisoner in a prison within the parish, the time of the imprisonment is merely deducted from the whole time of residence; and if after such deduction there remain a residence of five years (not including any time during which he may be receiving relief), he will be irremovable. It was in one case holden that if the prison be out of the parish, the imprisonment there formed a break in the residence (q). But that case has been overruled; and it is now holden that an imprisonment in or out of the parish, whether for felony, misdemeanor, or debt, is no break in the residence, but the time of it is merely to be deducted, leaving the residue as the period of actual residence (r).

As to soldiers, marines, or sailors,-The proviso that the time during which a person "shall be serving her Majesty as a soldier, marine, or sailor," shall be excluded in the computation of the five years, admits of two constructions; either it excludes soldiers, marines, and seamen in her Majesty's service, and their wives and families, from the privilege here given of irremovability, altogether, for they are at all times serving her Majesty; or it merely excepts from the computation of the five years, such time as the soldier, marine, &c., may be absent from the parish on actual service. The point arose in R. v. East Stonehouse, 17 Law J. 166, m.; but it became unnecessary to decide it, the case being decided upon another ground (s). A militiaman has been holden to be a soldier, within the meaning of the Act (t).

And the time during which a man shall "reside as an inpensioner in Greenwich or Chelsea hospitals," shall be excluded in the computation of the five years, as to themselves and their families, whether the families reside in the parish in which the hospital is situate or not.

As to lunatics,-By stat. 12 & 13 Vict. c. 103, s. 4, "the removal of any lunatic pauper to an asylum, licensed house, or registered hospital, under the authority of the statutes in that behalf, or of any pauper, otherwise than under an order of removal, from his place of abode in any parish of a union to the work house of such union,-shall not be deemed to be an interruption of the residence of such pauper within the meaning of the statute 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, but the time spent in such lunatic asylum, licensed house, or registered hospital or

(q) R. v. Salford, 17 Law J. 170, m.

(r) R. v. Hartfield, 21 Law J. 65, m. R. v. St. Andrew, Holborn, Id. 69, m. R. v. Holbeck, 20 Law J. 107, m.

(8) See also R. v. East Stonehouse, 24 Law J. 121, m. (t) R. v. Horton, 19 Shaw's J. P. 795.

workhouse respectively, and the time during which any person shall be relieved at the charge of the common fund of the union, shall be wholly excluded from the computation of the time of residence which, according to the provisions of such statute, will exempt a poor person from being removed.” As to patients in hospitals,-The time during which a person is confined "as a patient in a hospital," is to be excluded in the computation of the five years,-certainly, if the hospital be within the parish, and also, I should rather think, in cases where the hospital is out of the parish.

Time of relief deducted.] The time during which "any such person shall receive relief from any parish, or shall be wholly or in part maintained by any rate or subscription raised in a parish in which such person does not reside, not being a bona fide charitable gift," shall be excluded in the computation of the five years (c), whether the relief occur in the middle or at the end of the time of residence. And where a widow received relief for herself and children for five years, and, upon the death of the mother, an order being made for the removal of the children, it was objected that as by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76 (d), relief given to the children of a widow, is deemed to be relief to the widow, the children were not relieved within the meaning of the proviso in stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, and were therefore not removable: but the court held that in the fair construction of that proviso, relief given to the mother for the children was relief given to the children, and that they were therefore removable under the order (e). Where in an appeal against an order, dated in 1847, for the removal of a pauper, Mary Sweeny, and her four children, from the parish of St. John, Southwark, to the parish of Christchurch, it appeared that she had resided in the parish of St. John from the year 1839 until the obtaining of the order in 1847, but she was continuously chargeable, either to St. John's or Christchurch, from January 1843 to 1847; and if the time of chargeability were deducted from the whole time of residence, less than five years would of course remain; but the objection, and the question stated for the opinion of the court, was, whether the proviso in the 1st section of stat. 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, was, as well as the enactment, retrospective: the court of Queen's Bench held the proviso to be retrospective; the enacting clause includes all persons who have resided tive years in the parish, and the proviso helps to define what shall be deemed such residence, by providing that the time during

(c) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 66, s. 1, ante, p. 696.

(d) Ante, p. 293.

(e) R. v. Shavington cum Gresty, 20 Law J. 194, m.