1

management of guardians. This is not expressly required by the statute, with respect of the notice of chargeability, as it merely requires that these parties shall send the notice. But if a signature is not to be necessarily implied from the words of the Act, the respondents, if required to prove notice of chargeability, must at least prove that it was sent by the orders or with the approbation of the parties here mentioned. And where it was signed by three overseers, but it appeared that there were four overseers and two churchwardens in the parish, it was holden bad (a). But where a notice of chargeability was signed by three persons, who described themselves as "overseers of the poor of the said parish of Melksham;" and it was objected to, because it did not purport to come from "the" overseers, (which would imply the whole of them,) or from a majority of them: the court held that it was sufficient; it was good prima facie, and it was for the appellants to defeat it by evidence (b). But in respect of the statement of the grounds of removal, it is expressly required to be under the hands of the overseers or guardians, as above mentioned, by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 2. Where a parish was under guardians, by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 39, a notice of chargeability, signed by three of the guardians, was holden to be sufficient (c). But where by a local Act, the several parishes of Southampton were united into one district, under guardians, for all purposes except that of settlement, but churchwardens and overseers of the poor were still appointed for each of the parishes it was holden that a notice of chargeability must be given by the churchwardens and overseers of the parish in which a pauper becomes chargeable, and not by the guardians, for they were not the guardians of the parish (d). It will be best to date it on the day it is sent.

When and how transmitted.] This notice and statement, accompanied by a copy or counterpart of the order of removal, must be sent, by post or otherwise, to the overseers of the parish to whom the order of removal is directed. It is usual to send them by post, directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the parish, or to the overseers if it be a township. And care should be taken to send them as soon as possible after the making of the order, as the parish will be entitled to be reimbursed only for such relief to the paupers as shall be given after the sending of such notice, and in the case of a suspended order, will not be entitled to be reimbursed at

(a) R. v. Westbury, 5 Q. B. 500.

(b) R. v. Colerne, 17 Law J. 121, m.

(c) R. v. Lambeth, 14 Law J. 133, m.; 5 Q. B. 513.

(d) R. v. St. Mary's, Southampton, 14 Law J. 134, m.

all, unless such notice, &c. be given within ten days after the order is made (e). Where the copy of the order, sent with the notice of chargeability, omitted the names of the justices, and on that account the sessions quashed the order,—it was holden that the respondents were not thereby prevented from obtaining another order for the removal of the pauper to the same parish, upon the pauper afterwards becoming chargeable (ƒ).

(e) See 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 84, post.

(f) R. v. Great Bolton, 14 Law J. 122, m.

By whom.] The churchwardens and overseers of the removing parish, or any one of them, may remove the pauper or paupers named in the order of removal. Or, by stat. 54 G. 3, c. 170, s. 10, the churchwardens, overseers, or others, having the control, ordering, or management of the poor of any district, parish, township, or hamlet, may employ any proper person or persons whomsoever, to carry, remove and deliver any pauper or paupers ordered to be removed by any of his Majesty's justices of the peace competent to make such order; and that the delivery by such person or persons of any pauper or paupers so ordered to be removed, shall be as good, valid, and effectual, to all purposes whatsoever, as if the same was or were delivered by any churchwarden or overseer what

soever.

When.] The pauper cannot be removed until twenty-one days after the notice of chargeability, with a copy or counterpart of the order of removal, and a statement of the grounds of removal, have been sent to the overseers of the opposite parish, unless such overseers agree to submit to the order (g); and if within such period of twenty-one days a copy of the depositions shall be applied for, the pauper shall not be removed until after the expiration of a further period of fourteen days after the sending of such copy (h). Where the pauper was not removed for a year after the making of the order: the court held this to be no objection, unless it appeared that the circumstances of the pauper had since been altered (). Where the order of removal was appealed against, and the sessions confirmed it subject to a case for the opinion of the court of Queen's Bench; but the overseer of the respondent parish, not

(g) 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 79, ante, p. 756.

(h) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31, s. 9, see post, p. 769.

(i) R. v. Llanrinio, 4 T. R. 473.

waiting for the decision of the latter court, removed the pauper to the appellant parish; and for this he was indicted: but the court upon demurrer held the indictment bad, as it did not state that any fraud or menace was made use of in the removal (k).

To what place.] The pauper must be removed to some parish, township or place maintaining its own poor, for which overseers are appointed. And therefore where a pauper, who had served his apprenticeship in Bridewell, an extra-parochial place, was removed there, the order stating upon the face of it that Bridewell was an extra-parochial place: the court held that the pauper ought not to have been removed to such a place, and quashed the order (1). So where a pauper, after gaining a settlement in Durham, rented a farm at 150l. a year for many years at Southwold Park, which was an extraparochial place, consisting of two houses only and 300 acres of land, and for which overseers had never been appointed; becoming chargeable, and being thereupon removed to Durham, it was objected that he ought to have been removed to Southwold Park: but the court held that Southwold Park, as here described, was not a town or vill within the meaning of stat. 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, for which overseers could be appointed, and that therefore the pauper ought not to have been removed to it (m). So, where the pauper had hired for and served a year in the hamlet of Sirescoat, which was a hamlet in the parish of Tamworth, consisting of one house only and 400 acres of land, but was never rated to the poor in Tamworth, nor were overseers ever appointed for it; the pauper becoming chargeable to another parish, was removed to Tamworth, the order adjudicating that he gained a settlement in Sirescoat in that parish: the court held this to be correct; he could not have been removed to Sirescoat, for that place had no overseers separately appointed for it; and as to the adjudication, it was the same in substance as if it had adjudged the pauper to be settled in Tamworth (n). As to the appointment of separate overseers for townships, villages and hamlets, see ante, p. 35. Where a parish was situated partly in the county of Southampton, partly in the county of Wilts, and a pauper was removed by order from that part in the county of Southampton to that part in the county of Wilts, the court quashed the order, because it did not appear upon the face of it that these different parts of the parish were distinct vills or townships, separately maintaining their own poor (o). So,

:

where a pauper, settled at Saighton, afterwards gained a settlement in Gloverstone, when that place was a township maintaining its own poor; he subsequently became chargeable to a third parish, and was removed to Saighton, Gloverstone having before then ceased to be a township, all the houses in it having been taken down, and overseers being no longer appointed for it the court held that by gaining a settlement at Gloverstone, the pauper's former settlement at Saighton was extinguished, and therefore he ought not to have been removed there; and as he could no longer be removed to Gloverstone, the justices should not have removed him at all (p). So, where the pauper, who had gained a settlement in Crowland, afterwards hired and served for a year in that part of Deeping Fen, which had been given by Act of parliament to the trustees for the drainage, and by the Act it was provided that all persons inhabiting on this part of the fen, who could not maintain themselves, should be maintained by the trustees, and not become chargeable to the parish; overseers had formerly been appointed for Deeping Fen, but none since 1810; the pauper in 1827 becoming chargeable to Spalding, was removed to Crowland, as the place of his last legal settlement: but the court held this to be wrong, as either the trustees, or the parish in which their part of the fen was situate, were bound to maintain the pauper (q). In the course of the argument in this last case, when it was objected that as Deeping Fen had no overseers, the pauper could not be removed to it, it was observed that Spalding should first have got the magistrates to appoint overseers for it, and then obtain an order of removal to it (r). But where a parish lay partly in Leicestershire and partly in Warwickshire, and the justices of Warwickshire appointed an overseer for it who acted for the whole parish, and was also churchwarden, but no overseer was appointed by the justices of Leicestershire; a pauper whose settlement was in that part of the parish which was in Leicestershire, being removed to the parish, it was objected that until an overseer was appointed for that part of the parish which lay in Leicestershire, no pauper settled in that part could be removed to it: but the court said that the churchwarden was overseer for the whole parish by statute, and they therefore overruled the objection (s). Where, however, the pauper was born at Oakmere, at a time when it was extra-parochial, and no overseer appointed; afterwards it was made a township by Act of parliament, and overseers appointed for it; and the pauper, becoming chargeable, was removed to it: the court held that he could not be removed to it as to the place of his settlement,

(p) R. v. Saighton-on-the Hill, 2 B. & A. 162.

(q) R. v. Crowland, 8 B. & C.

711.

(r) R. v. Crowland, 8 B. & C. 711. (8) R. v. Merevall, Burr. S. C 661.