14th August, 1834, it must also be proved that the party still inhabits within ten miles of the parish (u). Settlement by payment of parochial rates and taxes, is proved, by proving that the party was rated for them, and paid them (v). The rating must in strictness be proved, by the production of the rate books, if the justices insist upon it, and this may be procured by a summons or subpoena of one of the overseers of the parish where the rate was made; the payment may be proved by any person who can swear to it. In the case of a rating between the 22nd June, 1795, and the 22nd June, 1825, it must be proved that the tenement in respect of which the party was rated, was then of the annual value of ten pounds (w); and in the case of a rating since the 22nd June, 1825, it must be proved that the tenement in respect of which the party was rated, was rented by him for a year, occupied for a year, and 107. of the year's rent paid, under stat. 6 G. 4, c. 57, in precisely the same way as when a settlement by renting a tenement is claimed under that statute (x). In both cases a residence of the party in the parish for forty days at least after payment of the rate, must be proved (y). Settlement by serving office, is proved, by proving that the party was duly appointed to some public annual office in the parish, that he served that office in the parish during the whole year, and that he also resided in the parish during the whole of the year (z). The time of the appointment and service must be shown, in order that it may appear that the settlement was gained before the 14th August, 1834; for, by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 64, after that time no settlement shall be gained by serving an office." As to derivative settlements,-a settlement by marriage is proved, by proving the husband's settlement, and then the marriage (a). And a settlement by parentage is proved, by proving the father's settlement, his marriage, the birth of the pauper, and, if necessary, his emancipation (b). Or if a wife or widow is to be removed to the place of her maiden settlement, or if a legitimate child is to be removed to the place of the mother's maiden settlement, it will be sufficient to prove the maiden settlement in the one case, or the maiden settlement, the marriage, and the birth of the pauper in the other, without proving that any search or inquiry had been made for (u) See ante, p. 650. (v) Ante, p. 660. R. v. St. Olave's, Southwark, 5 Q. B. 912. (w) 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 4, ante, p. 667. (x) Vide supra, and see ante, p. 609. R. v. Ripon, 14 Law J. 102, m.; 7 Q. B. 225. R. v. JJ. of Sus- (z) Ante, pp. 672, 674, 675. the husband's settlement; the general rule being, that where the respondents' evidence makes out a maiden settlement, and contains nothing to show that any subsequent settlement, which would supersede the maiden settlement, has been gained, that constitutes a prima facie case; and if the husband or father in fact had a settlement, it is for the appellants to prove it,-it will not be presumed (c). So, it is not necessary for the respondents to prove that the pauper has not resided five years in the parish; or that the relief was not made necessary by sickness or accident (d). Admission of settlement by relief: this is proved, by proof that relief was given once or oftener to the pauper by the overseers of the parish to which he is about to be removed, whilst he was residing in another parish. Even where the clerk of union A. wrote to the guardians of union B. desiring them to give certain relief to a pauper residing in their union, on account of union A., and which was accordingly done, and the amount afterwards repaid,—this was holden to be some evidence of relief by the parish in union A., to which it was charged (e). The kind of relief should be stated; and the times at which it was received as nearly as possible. However, when it was stated that the parish officers had relieved the pauper's husband several times during the last six years, whilst residing out of their parish, and particularly by relieving him several times in 1839 and 1840, whilst he was residing in Liverpool: this was holden sufficient (ƒ). So, where a pauper in his examination, after stating the ages of his six children, stated that on the occasion of his wife's confinement on the birth of several of their children, he had been allowed medical attendance for her by the appellant parish: this was deemed sufficient (g.) Former order unappealed against-this is proved by producing and proving the former order (h), and proving that the pauper was removed under it and delivered to one of the overseers to whom it was directed, together with a duplicate of the order, and that there was no appeal. In strictness, the fact of there having been no appeal, should be proved by some person who examined the books of the quarter sessions, and found that there was none. But the justices are usually satisfied with the evidence on oath of any person who is likely to know the fact. Former order appealed against and confirmed:-This is (c) R. v. Birmingham, 8 Q. B. 410; 15 Law J. 65, m. (d) R. v. Halifax, 17 Law J. 158, m. m. (e) R. v. Wigan, 19 Law J. 18, (f) R. v. JJ.of Carnarvonshire, 2 Q. B. 325; 11 Law J. 3, m. (g) R. v. Birmingham, 1 New Sess. Ca. 105. (h) R. v. Mildenhall, 2 Q. B. 517; 11 Law J. 107, m. proved, by proving the order as in the last case; and the confirmation of the order on appeal may be proved by an examined copy of the judgment or order of the sessions, from the entry in the sessions books. Former order appealed against and quashed,—is proved in the same way. The following may be the form of the examination : labourer, day of Berkshire:-The examination of A. B., of · and G. H., of – labourer, taken on oath this in the year of our Lord at before us, C. D. and E. F., esquires, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the county aforesaid (one of us being of the quorum), touching the place of the last legal settlement of him the said A. B. and Mary his wife, and their [five] children, on the complaint of the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of · in the said county, that the said A. B., his wife and children, have come to inhabit and are now inhabiting in the said parish of – —, not having gained a legal settlement there, nor having produced any certificate acknowledging them to be settled elsewhere; and that they are now actually chargeable to the said parish. This deponent A. B. upon his oath saith [§c.] Taken before us the day and year} first above mentioned. And this deponert G. H. upon his oath saith [&c.] Taken before us the day and year } first above mentioned. Copy of the depositions.] Formerly, the respondents were obliged to send a copy of the examinations, on which the order of removal was granted, to the officers of the parish to which the paupers were ordered to be removed, at the same time that they sent them the notice of chargeability. This, however, is no longer so (i); but the clerk to the justices who shall make any order of removal, shall keep the depositions upon which such order was made, and shall within seven days furnish a copy of such depositions to the overseers or guardians as aforesaid of the parish to which the removal is by such order directed to be made, if such overseers or such guardians shall apply for such copy, and pay for the same at the rate of twopence for every folio of seventy-two words; provided, that no omission or delay in furnishing such copy of the depositions shall be deemed or construed to be any ground of appeal against the order of removal; provided also, that on (i) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 1. the trial of any appeal against an order of removal, no such order shall be quashed or set aside, either wholly or in part, on the ground that such depositions do not furnish sufficient evidence to support, or that any matter therein contained or omitted raises an objection to, the order or grounds of removal (k). And a copy of the whole examination must be given. Therefore, where the justices took the examinations of four persons, three of whom proved a settlement of the pauper's husband by apprenticeship; the examination of the fourth related to the hiring of some land by the pauper's husband in another parish; the justices, however, did not act upon the evidence of this fourth witness, but made the order according to the evidence of the other three; and a copy of the examinations of these three witnesses alone was sent to the appellants: the court held that a copy of all the examinations taken should have been sent; the whole evidence forms one entire thing, and no part relating at all to the settlement of the pauper ought to have been omitted (1). But where the justices, before making an order of removal, took the examinations of the witnesses tendered on the part of the removing parish, and copies of these examinations were duly sent to the other parish; but the justices had also taken the examination of certain witnesses, at the request of the parish on which they were about to make the order, which however they did not reduce to writing, but made the order wholly on the examination of the witnesses on the part of the removing parish: it was holden to be no objection that the examinations of the witnesses on the part of the other parish, were not reduced into writing, and copies sent (m). (k) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 3. 8 Law J. 27, m.; 9 Ad. & El. 896. (m) R.v. Holne, 15 Law J. 125, m. CHAPTER III. Order of Removal. SECT. 1. The Order, p. 729. 2. Suspension of the Order, p. 747. SECTION I. The Order. By whom to be made, 729. Adjudication, 740. By whom to be made.] By the terms of the statute (a), the order of removal must be made by "two justices of the peace, whereof one to be of the quorum, of the division" where the person chargeable shall have come to inhabit. But where it was objected that it did not appear upon the face of the order that the justices who made it were justices of the division in which the removing parish was situate, the court overruled the objection, holding that the statute was merely directory in that respect (b). The order, however, must be made by two justices acting together, and the same two by whom the pauper and witnesses were examined. Where one justice alone examined the pauper, and he signed the order not only with his own name, but also with the name of another justice: the court, upon application, granted a criminal information against him (c). Where it appeared that the magistrates signed the order separately, and not in the presence of each other, the court held that this did not render the order absolutely void, but merely voidable upon appeal (d). So, where an order was made by justices of Wiltshire, upon an examination taken before justices of Middlesex: the court held it bad on that account (e). Where an order of removal was made by the (a) See ante, p. 681. (b) Anon., 2 Šalk. 473. (c) R. v. Howarth, 2 Bott, 640. (d) R. v. Stotford, 4 T. R. 596. (e) R. v. Coln St. Aldwin's, Burr. S. C. 136. |