by required to signify their allowance and approbation of any such account under their hands, and to sign and attest the caption of the same at the foot of such account, in manner directed by 17 G. II. By 50 G. III. c. 49, s. 1, the special sessions may grant warrant to parish officers to levy a balance due from their predecessors by distress; and after granting it, they have no right to suspend its execution on account of a doubt whether the balance had been correctly ascertained (g). The clause giving an appeal is as follows (h) :-" If any such churchwardens and overseers, or any of them, shall feel themselves, himself, or herself aggrieved by the disallowance or reduction of any such charges or payments, and be desirous of appealing against any order in that respect, made by any such two or more justices of the peace, it shall and may be lawful for him, her, or them to enter an appeal against such order at the next general or quarter sessions (i) to be holden next after the tenth day from the making of such order, he, she, or they having first paid or delivered over to the succeeding churchwardens and overseers such sum and sums of money, goods and chattels, and other things, as, on the face of the account which shall have been submitted by him, her, or them to such two or more justices in manner aforesaid, shall appear and be admitted to be due and owing from him, her, or them, or remaining in his, her, or their hands, and having also entered into a recognizance, before one or more such justice or justices before whom such recognizance shall be acknowledged, in not less than double the sum or value in dispute, to enter such appeal at such next general or quarter sessions, and abide by such order as shall at that, or any subsequent sessions, be made on such appeal; and it shall and may be lawful for the justices of the peace assembled at such general or quarter sessions, on proof of the matter aforesaid, and on the production of such recognizance, and proof of the same having been duly entered into, to adjourn such appeal if they shall see occasion, or to hear the same, and to examine into and confirm or reverse such disallowance or reduction, in the whole or in part, as to such justices at such sessions shall seem just." Requisites before entering Appeal.] The balance of money, with (g) Barons v. Luscombe, 3 Ad. & E. 589; and quære, if the arrear had not existed, viz., if the balance had not been paid before the warrant was signed. (h) Sect. 2. (i) See R. v. London (Justices), 15 East, 632. such goods, &c. as, on the face of the account as originally submitted to the justices, appear and are admitted to be due from him, or to remain in hand, must be delivered over to the succeeding parish officers, and a recognizance must be given in double the sum in dispute, conditioned to enter the appeal at the next sessions, and to abide by such order as shall then or at any subsequent session be made on such appeal. But no notice of appeal is requisite, as the entering into recognizance is deemed sufficient notice (k). The best course is to enter into the recognizance before the same justices who disallowed the items, that they may have fair intimation of the party's intention to appeal against their decision, which appears to constitute them respondents. This practice is the more to be recommended, as the sessions have a general power to adjourn the hearing of the appeal, if they think that justice will not be done from the want of knowledge by the respondents that the recognizance had been given. A fair practitioner will also give due notice of appeal to the justices, and also to the existing parish officers (who are interested on behalf of their parish), either that the appeal will be entered and tried at a session named, or that it will be entered and an application made to respite it. The appellant should also call on the justices who take the recognizance, to forward it to the clerk of the peace, that it may be ready to be produced at the hearing of the appeal. Hearing and Judgment.]—If at the hearing the recognizance is disputed, it should be produced by the clerk of the peace. No notice of appeal need be proved. The respondents should begin by showing the reasons for disallowing the items. The judgment may be either to confirm or reverse the disallowance or reduction; and the costs incurred by parish officers on any such appeal may be given to them, payable out of the poor-rates of the parish (1). The certiorari is taken away as to "orders or proceedings" of general or quarter sessions, or justices, made or had under 50 G. III. c. 49 (m). If the sessions reserve a special case, it is not too late when it is called on for argument, to object that the order of sessions had been improperly removed, the certiorari having been taken away (n). (k) R. v. Kent (Justices), and R. v. Essex (Justices), ante, p. 630. In neither of these cases did the statutes on which they proceed require the recognizance to be entered into before any particular justices, or the justices whose act was appealed against. (4) 50 G. III. c. 49, s. 2. (m) Id. sect. 5. 2 B. & Ald. 522. garded in Reg. v. 2 Q. B. 308. See R. v. Bird et al. This rule was disreFouch and Watling, (n) See 2 B. & Ald. 524; also 11 Ad. & E. 80; Burr. S. C. 112; 2 Nolan, 601, 4th edit. CHAPTER XI. OF APPEALS AGAINST ORDERS OF REMOVAL. SECTIONS. 1.-Of Removal, and herein of the Power to Remove, of the Parties Removable, of the requisite Examinations, of the Order of Removal, of the Suspension, Execution, Abandonment, and Superseding of it; also of the Time of Removal, p. 710. II. Of the Right of Appeal against an Order of Removal, and to what Sessions; and herein, of the Notice of Appeal, Statement of Grounds of Appeal, and other Matters necessary to the regular Exercise of that Right, p. 736. III.-Of Settlement by Birth, p. 758. IV.-Of Settlement by Parentage, p. 761. V.-Of Settlement by Marriage, p. 764. VI.-Of Settlement by Apprenticeship, p. 771. XI.-Of Settlement by Serving an Annual Office, p. 842. XII.-Of Settlement by Acknowledgment, viz. by Certificate, Relief, or Nonappeal against Order of Removal, p. 844. XIII.-Of the Trial and Determination of Appeals against Orders of Removal ; and herein of Amendments of Orders, &c. by the Sessions, p. 848. SECTION I. OF ORDERS OF REMOVAL. Power to remove Paupers, how given.]-The power of removing paupers was given by 13 & 14 C. II. c. 12, which enacts, by sect. 1, "That it shall be lawful, upon complaint made (o) by the churchwardens (0) Thus the "complaint" is not required to be made in writing, Reg. v. Bedingham (Inh.), 13 L. J. (M. C.) 75; 1 New Sess. C. 105, Wightman, J., or on or overseers of the poor (p) of any parish to any justice of the peace, within forty days after any such person coming (i. e. a poor person coming from one parish to another) to settle (q) in any tenement under the yearly value of 10l., for any two justices of the peace (r), whereof one is of the quorum of the division where any person or persons that are [likely to be, altered now to "actually "] chargeable to the parish shall come to inhabit (s), by their warrant to remove and convey such oath, R. v. Standish cum Longtree, Burr. S. C. 150: but complaint whether written or oral must be made by all or a majority of the churchwardens and overseers, Reg. v. Bucks (Justices), 3 Q. B. 800; 12 L. J. (M. C.) 29, or of the overseers, where, as in some townships supporting their own poor, there are no churchwardens, or at least by one or more of them shown to act on behalf of the rest, and with their consent, Reg. v. Bedingham, or the justices have no jurisdiction to remove. If they do, and the objection is taken in a ground of appeal, the sessions must hear evidence offered in support of it, notwithstanding a recital in the order of removal, that a complaint was made by the overseers, &c., Reg. v. Sussex (Justices), 1 New Sess. C. 438 (Mich. 1844), or mandamus lies, S. C. In Reg. v. Bedingham (East, 1844), the complaint was in writing but by one of the overseers only. The order of removal recited a complaint made "by the overseers of the poor." The first ground of appeal was, that the order was not made on complaint of the overseers, but of J. S. only described as one of them. As the application was admitted to be made on behalf of the parish officers, and with their consent, the sessions held this point for respondents, but having quashed the order on another ground and granted a case, they stated the above, asking, inter alia, Whether there had been sufficient "complaint" to give jurisdiction to make the order? and the Q. B. held there had. These cases (with Reg. v. Sussex (Justices),) show the effect of sending a copy of the written complaint with the notice of chargeability, &c. to the removing parish, to be that of increasing the difficulties of appellants. The examinations need not state a complaint to have been made before the justices, Reg. v. Rotherham (Inh.), 3 Q. B. 557, 558. (p) Only the churchwardens or overseers can complain." Nota, by 22 G. III. c. 83, s. 7, where a guardian is appointed, viz. under that act for a parish, &c. forming part of a union under Gilbert's act, the overseers are not to interfere with the care and management of the poor. They therefore could not give notice of appeal against an order of removal. See per Patteson, J., 1 New Sess. C. 64, on ex parte Armley (Overseers), Mich. 1840 (not reported), being cited in Reg. v. West Riding Justices (Sprotbrough v. Attercliffe), 1 New Sess. C. 64. Nor semble, could they make the complaint of chargeability. As to the case of the body of overseers not being complete in its integral parts and so not competent to complain, see Reg. v. Leominster (Inh.), 13 L. J. (M. C.) 54; 1 New Sess. C. 80, S. C.; also Reg. v. Surrey (Justices), (Allhallows v. Wimbledon), 13 L. J. (M. C.) 86, decided on notices of appeal also directed to be given by "the churchwardens and (q) R. v. Birmingham (Inh.), 14 East, 251. (r) Not including a quarter sessions, R. v. Bond, 2 Shower, 593. (8) The pauper must "inhabit" the parish at time of taking the examination and making the order; and should appear on the examination to be so, Reg. v. Rotherham (Inh.), 2 Q. B. 557, or justices have no jurisdiction to remove. A man may come to inhabit" within the act, though not intending to reside permanently, R. v. Woolpit, 4 Ad. & E. 205. In Reg. v. Rotherham, pauper's examination was thus headed," examination of M. V. of the township of S., widow." It was sworn at S. before the removing justices, and stated that her three children, aged seven and three years and one year, 66 were chargeable to S." Held sufficient to show all the paupers inhabiting in S. at the time of the ex person to such parish (t) where he was last legally settled, either as a native householder, sojourner, apprentice or servant, for the space of forty days at the least, unless he shall give sufficient security for the discharge of the parish, to be allowed by the said justices;" subject to an appeal by any parties thinking themselves aggrieved, to the next quarter sessions for the county (u). By two subsequent enactments, 1 J. II. c. 17, s. 3, and 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 3, the forty days continuance in a parish, which was intended by 13 & 14 C. II. to confer a settlement, was to be accounted from the time of the pauper's delivering a notice in writing to the parish officers of the house of his abode and number of his family; but now by 35 G. III. c. 101, s. 3, no person coming into any parish, &c. shall be enabled to gain any settlement therein by delivery, &c. of such notice (x). Since 1795, the legislature has confined the power of removal to parties actually chargeable (y): for instance, to persons not merely asking, but obtaining relief, and from one of the parish officers (z). The only persons who can now be removed to their places of settlement as" actually chargeable," without being so in fact, are persons convicted of felony (a), or as rogues and vagabonds, idle or disorderly persons under the vagrant act (b), or who appear to two justices of the division where they reside, upon oath of one witness at least, to be of evil fame or reputed thieves, not being able to give a satisfactory account of him or herself, or of his or her way of living (c). Again, as by the new poor law (d), relief given to or on account of the wife, or to or on account of any children under the age of sixteen, not being blind or deaf and dumb, is to be considered as given to the husband of such wife, or to the father of such child or children, as the case amination (see R. v. Binegar, 7 East, 377, R. v. Harberton, 13 East, 311, and post), though the statement of chargeability was not sufficient to prove that fact, Reg. v. Lidford (Inh.), 1 New C. Sess. 244, without other evidence. By 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 56, the workhouse of every union or parish shall for the purposes of relief, settlement and removal, or burial of poor persons, be considered as situated in the parish to which each poor person respectively to be relieved, removed, &c., or otherwise concerned in any such purpose, is or has been chargeable. (t) But not to an extra-parochial place, Bridewell (Inh.), and Clerken well (Inh.), Salk. 486, or from it, Dean Forest (Inh.), and Linton (Inh.), id. 487. (u) As to the present jurisdiction over appeals from parishes in boroughs not being counties of themselves, but having separate quarter sessions, see ante, p. 5. (a) See 4 B. J. 406, 29th ed. (y) 35 G. III. c. 101, s. 1. (z) R. v. Kingswood, Burr. Sett. Cas. 392; and Great Bedwin v. Wilcot, id. 163. A pauper's having property of a few pounds' value does not make him less 44 actually chargeable" if he has asked for and had relief as above, R. v. Ampthill (Inh.), 2 B. & C. 847. (a) 35 G. III. c. 101, s. 5. (b) 5 G. IV. c. 83, s. 20. See ante. |