removed from it (y). But if the pauper be in the workhouse of the parish, he is deemed to be in the parish, although the workhouse be locally situate out of it (z). Or if he be in the workhouse of a union, such workhouse is considered to be in the parish to which each poor person relieved in it is chargeable (a). 2. The chargeability of the pauper to the parish or township at the time; otherwise the justices have no jurisdiction to order him to be removed. 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 1 (b). Where the parish is in a union, the best way of proving the chargeability is by the certificate of the guardians, see ante, p. 29; otherwise the magistrates may insist on having the books of the union brought before them, to prove to what parish the relief of the pauper was charged. In parishes or townships not in a union, the magistrates have a right to be satisfied as to when, how, and by whom the relief was given. Swearing merely that the pauper is chargeable is not deemed sufficient; there must be evidence of relief given (c), or that the party is in the workhouse (d). And where a relieving officer under a board of guardians for a union, stated in his examination, that he had paid the paupers parish relief in money for upwards of a year then last past, during which time he had paid them 28. 6d. weekly and every week on account of the township of S., out of money in his hands belonging to the said township: this was holden to be insufficient proof of chargeability; for as he was an officer of the whole union his authority from the particular township to pay the money should have been shown (e). In the following cases, however, it is not necessary to prove relief, in order to show chargeability:-1. Where the party to be removed has been convicted of larceny or other felony, 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 5 ;-2. Where he is convicted of being an idle or disorderly person, rogue, or vagabond, 5 G. 4, c. 83, s. 20, or by law is deemed such, 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 5;-3. Where he shall appear to any two or more justices of the peace of the division wherein such person shall reside, upon the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses, to be a person of evil fame, or a reputed thief, such person not being able to give a satisfactory account of himself or herself, or of his or her way of living, Id. :-in all these cases the party shall be (y) See R. v. Rotheram, 12 Law J. 17, m.; 2 Q. B. 557, n. (c) R. v. High Bickerton, 13 Law J. 74, m.; see R. v. Great (d) R. v. Manchester, 14 Law J. 126, m. (e) R. v. Bradford, Wilts, 15 Law J. 117, m. חי deemed to be actually chargeable, and liable to be removed to the parish of his last legal settlement. 3. The settlement of the pauper in the parish, to which he is to be removed, must be proved; and the overseers should be prepared with legal proof of every fact necessary to constitute the settlement (ƒ), with names, dates, &c. (g); otherwise the justices may refuse to make the order. So, if the evidence be not legal,—if for instance the evidence be hearsay evidence merely (h), or if the parties offer to prove a written instrument without producing it (i), the justices may reject the evidence, and refuse to make the order. Settlements are original or derivative: original, where the party has acquired it himself; derivative, where a woman acquires a settlement by marriage, or a child derives a settlement from his father or mother by parentage. As to original settlements A birth settlement is proved, by proving the birth, and the time and place of it. It is not necessary to prove that the child was legitimate or illegitimate; but if it appear that the child was illegitimate, and born since the 14th August, 1834, the place of the mother's settlement must be proved. Even where it was sworn that the pauper was born out of wedlock, in the parish of A., "in or about the year 1833," nothing being said of the settlement of the mother:-it was holden insufficient, as the words "in or about the year 1833" did not necessarily exclude the 14th August, 1834, when the stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, came into operation, and the law was altered as to the settlement of illegitimate children (k). A settlement by hiring and service is proved, by proving the hiring, and that the party was at that time unmarried and without child or children,-the service, and a residence in the parish for forty days. See ante, p. 440. Proof must be given of a hiring for a year, express or implied (/), with names, dates, &c. (m). And where it was sworn that " in or about" the year 1832, the pauper was hired as a yearly servant by J. S., and served him a year and upwards under such yearly hiring, this was holden insufficient, as not showing with sufficient certainty that the service for the year was completed (f) See R. v. JJ. of W. R.Yorkshire, 1 G. & Dav. 706; 11 Law J. 80, m. (g) See R. v. Derbyshire, 6 Ad. & El. 885. (h) R. v. Lydeard St. Lawrence, 11 Ad. & El. 616. R. v. Rishworth, 2 Q. B. 476; 11 Law J. 34, m. (i) R. v. Mildenhall, 2 Q. B. 517; 11 Law J. 107, m. (k) R. v. St. Paul, Covent Garden, 14 Law J. 109, m. See ante, pp. 409, 412, 416. (1) R. v. Pilkington, 13 Law J. 61, m. R. v. North Bovey, 2 Q. B. 500; 11 Law J. 71, m. (m) R. v. Derbyshire, 6 Ad. & El. 885. VOL. III. ii at the time of the passing of the Poor Law Amendment Act (n). So the omission of the year altogether, would be clearly bad (0). Where it was sworn that the pauper came to live with B. as a farm servant, that he was not engaged for any time, but that B. found him board, washing, lodging and clothes as long as he stayed, that the pauper continued serving in this manner for three years, during all which time he lived and slept on the farm, and no other agreement was ever come to: the court held this bad, being no evidence whatever of a hiring (p). And it must be proved that the party was unmarried, and without child or children, at the time of the hiring, that being a material ingredient in the settlement (q). And where a pauper swore that, whilst unmarried, she served for several years under a general hiring in P.: this was holden bad, because it did not show that she was unmarried at the time of the hiring (r). So where it was sworn that about the year 1827, the pauper being unmarried, &c., was hired as a yearly servant by J. S., and served him at his residence, at, &c., under such yearly hiring, for four years or more, and lived and lodged in his house, at, &c., "for more than forty days next preceding the termination of the said service and on the last day thereof:" this was holden bad, because it did not appear that the pauper was unmarried at the time of the contract (express or implied) for the last year's service, that being the only year in which the forty days' residence was alleged (s). It must be also proved that the party served the whole of the year under the hiring, unless the service for some portion of the time was dispensed with. See ante, p. 481. And lastly, it must be proved that the party resided in the parish forty days during the service (t); and if there were a residence of forty days in two or more parishes, it must be proved that he resided the last day of the service in the parish in which the settlement is claimed. See ante, 502. Settlement by apprenticeship is proved by proving the apprenticeship, the service under it, and the forty days' resi dence. The apprenticeship is proved by producing and proving the indenture, if that be in existence and can be found; or if it have been destroyed or lost, then, after proving the destruction, or diligent search for it, by giving secondary (n) R. v. St. Anne, Westminster, 15 Law J. 119, m. (0) R. v. Bridgwater, 10 Ad. & El. 693. (p) R. v. Catterall, 5 Q. B. 901. (q) R. v. Wymondham, 2 Q. B. 541; 12 Law J.74, m. R. v. Sherburn, 2 Q. B. 545, n. R. v. Recorder of Leeds, Id. 547, n. (r) R. v. St. Paul's, Covent Garden, 5 Q. B. 669, n. (8) R. v. St. Anne, Westminster, 15 Law J. 119, m. (t) R. v. Storford, 2 Q. B. 526; 12 Law J. 7, m., and see ante, p. 500. evidence of its contents, and showing at the same time whether it is an ordinary or parish indenture (u). In the case of a parish indenture, the previous order of justices for the binding, and the allowance of the indenture, must also be proved (x); but where the binding is into a different parish from that to which the child belongs, it is not necessary to prove the previous notice to the overseers of such parish, required by stat. 56 G. 3, c. 139, s. 2, for that notice shall be presumed to have been given, until the contrary be proved (y). The service under the indenture, either with the master himself, or with some other person with the master's consent, for forty days at the least, must next be proved (z); and where it is with a person other than the master, it is of importance that the master's assent should be shown (a). And lastly, a residence of the apprentice in the parish for forty days at least, whilst serving under the indenture, must be proved (b); and if there were a residence of forty days in two or more parishes, it must be proved that the apprentice resided the last day of the service in the parish in which the settlement is claimed (c). Settlement by renting a tenement, under stat. 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, s. 1, to the 2nd July, 1819, is proved, by proving the party's occupation of the tenement during forty days at least, that the tenement was of the annual value of ten pounds at the least, and that during the occupation the party resided forty days in the parish (d). Care must be taken to show that the tenement was such as came within the meaning of the statute (e), &c. Settlement by renting a tenement, under stat. 59 G. 3, c. 50, from the 2nd July, 1819, to the 22nd June, 1825, is proved, by proving the renting of the tenement for a year, the occupation of it for a year, the payment of the rent for a year, and a residence in the parish for forty days during such occupancy (ƒ). The tenement must be described, so as to show that it consists either of a separate and distinct dwelling-house or building, or of land, or of both (g); it must appear when, for what time, and of whom, it was rented, and at what rent, and that the rent for a year was paid (h); and where the landlord of a (u) See ante, p. 544, and see R. v. Cumberworth Half, 13 Law J. 49, m. R. v. St. Anne, Westminster, 16 Law J. 33, m. (x) See ante, pp. 521, 525. (y) R. v. Whiston, 4 Ad. & El. 607. R. v. Witney, 5 Id. 191. (z) Ante, pp. 549, 557. (a) R. v. Lydeard St. Lawrence, 11 Ad. & El. 616. (b) Ante, p. 549. (c) Ante, p. 555. (d) See ante, pp. 591, 595. (e) R. v. Cumberworth Half, 13 Law J. 49, m.; and see ante, p. 572, &c. (f) See ante, p. 602. (g) See R. v. JJ. of Sussex, 10 Ad. & El. 682. (h) See R. v. Middleton in Teesdale, 10 Ad. & El. 688. R. v. Recorder of Pontefract, 2 Q. B. 548; 12 Law J. 81, m. R. v. Leeds, 13 Law J. 88, m. R. v. Derbyshire, 1 W. & Hodg. 323. R. v. JJ. of Sussex, supra. house stated in his examination that on the 22nd July, 1899, he let a house in the appellant parish to the husband of the pauper "at the rent of 101. per annum," exclusive of parochial rates, and that the pauper's husband occupied it until the 22nd July, 1841: it was holden (Coleridge, J. dis.) insufficient, as the evidence did not prove a yearly hiring of the tenement, except by implication from the time of occupation (n). The occupation for a year must be also proved, and a residence in the parish for at least forty days during the occupation (0). Settlement by renting a tenement, under stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, from the 22nd June, 1825, to the 14th August, 1834, is proved, by proving the renting of the tenement for a year, the occupation of it for a year, the payment of at least ten pounds of the year's rent, and a residence in the parish during forty days at least during the year's occupation. The evidence is the same as in the last case, except that it is only necessary to prove the payment of 101. of the rent (p). Settlement by renting a tenement, since the 14th August, 1834, is proved in precisely the same manner as in the last case; except that you must also prove that the occupier of the tenement was assessed to the poor rate, and paid the same, in respect of such tenement, for one year (q). For this purpose you will be obliged, in strictness, to summon or subpœna an overseer of the parish in which the tenement was rated, to produce the rate books of the year of the holding, unless the justices consent to dispense with such strict proof. Settlement by estate, acquired by descent, devise, or in any other manner than by buying it,-if the party claim to have been seised in his own right,-may be proved by proof of the seisin by the party vivá voce. But if he claim the estate in auter droit, it is otherwise: if he claim it by marriage, the seisin or possession of the wife before marriage must be proved, and then the marriage; or if he claim as executor or adminis trator, the seisin or possession of the deceased must be proved, and then the will or letters of administration (r). And as to an estate bought by the party, the conveyance must be produced and proved, and it must be proved that the purchase money amounted to or exceeded 301. (s). In both cases a residence of the party for forty days at least, in the parish in which the estate is situate, must be proved (t); and since the (n) R. v. St. Sepulchre, Northampton, 14 Law J. 8, m.; 6 Q. B. 580. (0) R. v. JJ. W. R. Yorkshire, 1 G. & Dav. 706; 11 Law J. 80, m. R. v. Same, 2 Q. B. 505. R. v. Old Stratford, Id. 513. R. v. St. Margaret, Rochester, 2 Q. B. 553; 12 Law J. 77, m. (p) See ante, p. 609. (q) 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 66. See ante, p. 623. (r) See ante, pp. 639, 637. |