ment, he might, at any time within forty days, be removed by the order of two justices. 13 & 14 C. 2, c. 12, s. 1. As this had the effect of preventing poor persons from going out of their own parish to seek for work, it was enacted by stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, s. 1, that if any person shall obtain from the churchwardens and overseers of a parish, a certificate under their hands and seals acknowledging him to be settled in their parish, attested by two witnesses, and allowed by two justices, and directed to the churchwardens and overseers of some other parish, then, upon delivering such certificate to the churchwardens or overseers of the latter parish, he might reside there, irremovable, until he should become actually chargeable. These certificates became very common, and continued so until by stat. 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 1, it was enacted, that no poor person should be removed from the parish or place where he was inhabiting, until he should be actually chargeable to it; and certificates, being thereby rendered useless, the practice of granting them was discontinued. But as a certificate was an admission, by the certifying parish, of the settlement of the party or parties named in it, it was used in evidence as such, and indeed as an admission of every matter stated in it, as between the certifying parish and the parish to whose officers it was directed, during the whole time that such certificates were usually granted, and long after the practice of granting them ceased; and as they are still evidence (t), and sometimes, though very rarely, occur now in practice, it is right that I should state shortly the law relative to them. Form and requisites.] The following is the form of the certificate and allowance : To the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of- in the county of · We, the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of in the county of · —, do hereby certify, own, and acknowledge that A. B., shoemaker, and Ann his wife, and J. B., their son, are inhabitants legally settled in our parish of aforesaid. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands and seals this ・day of· in the year of our Lord do We, J. P. and R. S., esquires, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said county of — allow the above written certificate. And we do also certify that L. M., one of the witnesses who attested the same, hath this day made oath before us, the said justices, that he the said L. M. did see the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of aforesaid, whose names and seals are hereunto subscribed and set, severally sign and seal the same; and that the names L. M. and N. O, who are the witnesses attesting the said certificate, are respectively of their own proper handwriting. Given under our hands and seals, this day of --. J. P. First. This certificate must be "under the hands and seals of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish, township, or place, or the major part of them, or under the hands and seals of the overseers of the poor of any other place, where there are no churchwardens" (c). In small parishes, where two persons act both as churchwardens and overseers, certificates signed and sealed by them are sufficient (d). So, where a certificate granted by a township, hamlet, or chapelry, is signed by a person styling himself churchwarden or chapelwarden of such township, &c., and who acted as such, the certificate shall be valid, although such person was in fact sworn in as churchwarden for the whole parish in which such township, &c., is situate (e). So, if executed by the overseers of the poor of any township, hamlet, or place, and the churchwarden or churchwardens, chapelwarden or chapelwardens, acting for or appointed in such township, &c., the certificate shall be deemed as valid as if it were executed by such overseers and the churchwarden or churchwardens of the parish within which such township, &c., is situate (ƒ). And by stat. 1 & 2 G. 4, c. 32, s. 1, all certificates theretofore executed by one churchwarden or chapelwarden of any parish, township, hamlet, chapelry, or place, for which two churchwardens or chapelwardens had formerly been appointed, shall be deemed valid notwithstanding. Secondly. The execution by the churchwardens and overseers must be attested respectively by two or more credible witnesses" (g). And in all cases of certificates granted after the 24th June, 1730, the attesting witnesses, or one of them, are required to make oath before the justices who allowed the same, that they saw the churchwardens and overseers, whose (c) 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, s. 1. (f) 54 G. 3, c. 107, s. 2. names and seals are hereunto set, severally sign and seal the certificate, and that the names of the attesting witnesses are of their own proper handwriting (h). Thirdly. The certificate must be "allowed and subscribed by two or more justices of the peace of the county, city, liberty, borough or town corporate, within which the parish or place, from whence such certificate shall come, shall lie" (i). Those justices shall also certify the oath taken by the attesting witness; "and every such certificate so allowed, and oath of the execution thereof so certified by the said justices of the peace, shall be taken, deemed and allowed, in all courts whatsoever, as duly and fully proved, and shall be taken and received as evidence without other proof thereof” (k). A certificate is an express admission by the certifying parish that the persons named in it are at that time legally settled in that parish; and it is an implied admission that every other person who claims to derive a settlement from any of the parties therein named, are legally settled there also. And therefore it extended, not only to the parties named in it, until they gained another settlement (1), but to their children, until they were emancipated, and gained a settlement in their own right. The certificate, however, is conclusive of the settlement only as between the certifying parish and that to which the certificate was directed; as between the certifying parish and any other parish, it is prima facie evidence, and perhaps strong evidence, but not conclusive (m). 2. Relief. In what cases, 817. How proved, 820. In what cases.] If a parish or township relieve a pauper, whilst that pauper is residing in another parish or township, that is deemed an implied admission on the part of the relieving parish or township that the pauper is settled in their parish or township; it is prima facie evidence, from which, if unexplained, the sessions may conclude that the settlement is there. Where upon the trial of an appeal against an order of removal from Leeds to Stanley, the appellants proved that the pauper's grandfather came to Stanley with a certificate from the parish of Ossett in 1727; and in answer to this, the respondents proved that the appellants had at different times relieved the pauper and his family whilst residing at Leeds and (h) 3 G. 2, c. 29, s. 8. (i) 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, s. 1. (k) 3 G. 2, c. 29, s. 8. (1) See ante, p. 815. VOL. III. (m) All Saints v. St. Giles, 2 Salk. 530. R. v. Lubbenham, 4 T. R. 251. R. v. Bishopside, Burr. 815. n n Wakefield; and the sessions, thinking this a sufficient answer to the prima facie case made out by the certificate, confirmed the order: the court of King's Bench held that the sessions had drawn the right conclusion; from 1727 there was ample time for the certificate to be discharged, both as to the father of the pauper, and as to the pauper himself; and if that were not so, it was not likely that Stanley would have relieved the pauper whilst residing in other parishes (n). So, where upon the trial of an appeal against an order of removal from Alverthorpe to Wakefield, the respondents proved that the appellants had, for nearly forty years, relieved the father of the pauper's husband and several members of his family, whilst they resided in another township; on the part of the appellants, it was merely proved that the pauper's husband was born at Alverthorpe; and the sessions confirmed the order: the court of King's Bench held, that as there was evidence on both sides, each party having made out a prima facie case, it was for the sessions to decide upon it, and they had done so (0). So, where it appeared that the pauper, whilst residing at Mansfield, applied for relief to the overseer of Edwinstowe, who happened to be at Mansfield on a market day, and he gave her 38. as relief, and told her if she wanted further relief, she should apply to him at Edwinstowe, and he would give it to her; she went accordingly a fortnight afterwards, but the same and another overseer refused her relief, saying that she must throw herself upon the parish of Mansfield; she did so, was removed to Edwinstowe, and Edwinstowe appealed; at the trial of the appeal these facts were proved, and no evidence being given on the other side to rebut the presumption arising from them, the sessions held that the pauper was settled at Edwinstowe, and confirmed the order: afterwards, in the court of King's Bench, it was objected that as the relief was given by the overseer whilst out of his own parish, when he had no opportunity of ascertaining whether the pauper was settled in his parish or not, it ought not to be admitted as evidence of the settlement; but the court held that it was evidence of the settlement, and it was competent for the sessions to form the conclusion from it which they had done, although probably the court would have done otherwise (p). So, where the examination on which an order was made for the removal of a widow, stated that the husband's sister, whilst a single woman, and not having gained a settlement in her own right, became pregnant of a bastard child whilst residing in the parish of B., and by the advice of the overseer of that (n) R. v. Stanley-cum-Wrenthorpe, 15 East, 350. (0) R. v. Wakefield, 5 East, 335. See also R. v. Barnsby, 1 M. & S. 877. (p) R. v. Edwinstore, 8 B. & C. parish she showed herself to the overseer of K., and with his knowledge and consent she went to one of her relations in K., and lay in there; that she afterwards went with the overseer of K. before the justices to filiate the child, and that she received pay for the child from the overseer of K. for about nine months, until it died; the sessions conceiving this to be no evidence of the settlement of this woman's brother, refused to receive it, and decided against the settlement: but the court held it to be some evidence of it, and therefore granted a mandamus to the sessions to enter continuances and hear the appeal (q). Where, on the other hand, the respondents proved, by the pauper and his wife, that the appellant parish had relieved them four or five times whilst they were living in the respondent parish; but the sessions quashed the order: afterwards in the court of King's Bench, it was contended that the sessions ought to have confirmed the order, inasmuch as the only legitimate conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence was, that the pauper was settled in the appellant parish; but the court refused to disturb the decision of the sessions, saying, that although the evidence would have warranted the sessions in coming to a different conclusion, yet they were not bound to do so (r). So, where the sessions found that the relief had been given by the overseers under a mistake of the law as to the pauper's settlement, and decided against the settlement, the court confirmed their decision (s); for as relief is merely an admission of a settlement, if it be proved to have been given under a mistake, it would be unreasonable that the parish should be concluded by it. Where the proof was of relief given to the pauper's father by the appellants, whilst he was living in another parish, but it was objected that it was not shown that the pauper was unemancipated at the time of the relief given, it appearing that he was then twenty-seven years of age, and was married in the following year: the court, however, held that it was not necessary for the respondents to give this negative evidence, it was sufficient for them to prove the relief, which was primâ facie evidence of the settlement (t). But relief by a parish or township, whilst the pauper is residing in the same parish or township, is no evidence of settlement at all. Where upon the trial of an appeal against an order of removal, the pauper proved that when he buried his first wife, he applied to and received relief from the overseers of Chadderton, and that his mother, who was since dead, told him that she lay in at Chadderton, and that the overseers then (q) R. v. JJ. of W. R. Yorkshire, 2 Q. B. 331. (r) R. v. Yarwell, 9 B. & C. 894. (s) R. v. East Winch, 12 Ad. & El. 697. (t) R. v. Lilleshall, 14 Law J. 97, m.; 7 Q. B. 158. |