Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

such second marriage, shall have been divorced from the bond of the first marriage, or to any person whose former marriage shall have been declared void by sentence of any court of competent jurisdiction. The offender may be tried in any county where he is in custody.

When the Inquiry into Marriage of Parties is excluded.]—The fact of marriage cannot be inquired into after an order of removal or a certificate, stating the parties to be husband and wife, if such an order be not appealed against in regular course; for the time being passed for taking advantage of the fact, even though it were not then discovered, the parties who are not damnified must abide by the consequences, and are estopped after (o).

Woman's Settlement, when not suspended during Coverture.]-The last point necessary to be noticed under this division, is one which was long controverted (p), viz., whether the settlement of a woman marrying a man, whose settlement is not known, is suspended during coverture, and revives after his decease; or whether it continues during coverture; and also as to the mode of proceeding upon an appeal under these circumstances. The following case is selected from many, as presenting the best illustration of the point as now settled.

A widow and her children were removed from Woodsford to Winbourne Minster. The session, on appeal, adjudged the settlement to be at Woodsford, and quashed the order, stating, that by a rule of the Dorsetshire sessions, the appellants begin, and in the first place show some settlement of the pauper out of the parish appealing. That in pursuance of that rule, appellants produced a copy of the register of the birth of Mary Scutt, in A.; and the pauper, Mary Pitman, swore that Mary Scutt was her maiden name. Respondents objected, that this was not sufficient; but that the birth, or some other settlement of the pauper's husband, ought to have been shown; and further, that to identify the said Mary Scutt, it was necessary for the appellants to prove her marriage with Robert Pitman. The session adjudged, that the proof of the birth of Mary Scutt was sufficient; that the onus probandi of the marriage lay upon the respondents; and quashed the order of removal. It was moved to quash the order of session, upon the ground that the pauper having been removed in the character of a widow, it imported, that it was a removal to the place of her late husband's settle

(0) Burr. S. C. 551; R. v. Ullesthorpe, 8 T. R. 465.

(p) Burr. S. C. 367; Cald. 39, 371: 2 Bott, 86.

ment that, unappealed from, it would be conclusive evidence of his settlement; and that as this must consequently have been the only point meant to have been brought in issue between the parties, the maiden settlement of the woman was nothing to the purpose, and did not apply to the question before the court. But per cur.," it may be, the husband had no settlement; and if he had, till discovered, her own would in the mean time remain. It is enough in the first instance. The sessions have done right. Motion denied" (q). But she could not be removed if living with her husband, whose settlement cannot be ascertained, unless by her consent as well as his (r). If the husband is dead or absent at the time she becomes chargeable, or has deserted her, she may be removed to the place of her maiden settlement (s).

A removal of the wife and children of a pauper to the place of their settlement, is supported prima facie by showing that the parish to which the removal was made was the place of the wife's maiden settlement; and though it also appeared by the marriage register that the husband was "of another parish," such description was holden no evidence of his being settled there: the burden of showing the husband settled in another parish being cast on the appellants (t). However, where the wife of W. O. was removed to her maiden settlement, which appeared to be in the appellant parish; but on cross-examining the respondent's witness it also appeared that the husband was born in the stable of an inn in Ipswich, during the march of a regiment to which his father belonged through that town, the removal was held wrong, as the husband was shown to have had a birth settlement somewhere in Ipswich, though it was not proved in which of the several parishes there he was born (u).

Evidence of a Marriage had in England or Wales.]-Since 1752, every marriage contracted in England or Wales is void, if not solemnized after publishing of banns, or licence obtained from the surrogate of the chancellor of the diocese, or on production of a certificate from

(q) R. v. Woodsford, Cald. 236; and see R. v. Ryton, Cald. 39: St. John's, Wapping, and St. Botolph's, Bishopsgate, Burr. S. C. 367, S. P.; Westham v. Chiddingstone, Stra. 683.

(r) Reg. v. Leeds (Inh.), 13 L. J. (M. C.) 107. See R. v. Carleton, Burr. Set. C. 813; R. v. Eltham, 5 East, 113.

(s) R. v. Cottingham (Inh.), 7 B. &

C. 615. See R. v. Stockton (Inh.), 5
B. & Ad. 546.

(t) R. v. Harberton (Inh.), 13 East, R. 311. Acted on in Reg. v. Yelvertoft, 1 New Sess. C. 476.

(u) R. v. St. Mary, Beverley, 1 B. & Adol. 201. Had appellants given this evidence they must have shown distinctly the parish in which he was born, S. C.

.

a superintendant registrar of marriages (x), either in some church or chapel in which banns were at that time usually published (y)—or in some parish church or public chapel erected since (z)-or in some public chapel wherein the bishop of the diocese has authorized banns to be published and marriages celebrated-or without banns, &c., in a building certified according to law as a place of religious worship (a) -or in the office of the superintendant registrar, and in his presence, and that of some district registrar (b). Marriages (c) had by special licence (d)—or where both parties are quakers or Jews (e), are excepted. Marriages between persons within the prohibited degrees of affinity, if solemnized before 31 Aug. 1835, are now valid; but marriages had before that day between persons within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, or after that day, between persons within the prohibited degrees of either affinity or consanguinity are void (ƒ).

Though the readiest proof of a marriage in England and Wales, between members of the established church, is by producing an examined copy of the entry in the parish register, and proving the hand-writing of the parties, with their identity, it is not essential; and a marriage may be proved by other evidence, e. g., that of the husband or wife (g). or other party present when the ceremony took place (h), or by reputation (i). Though parties affirming a marriage need not prove the preliminaries of a legal marriage, as banns, &c., those who impugn it may prove that banns were never published, or licence granted (k). Dissenters' registers, and certificates from the superintendant registrars of marriages, are also valid evidence (1).

A marriage by banns, in names by which, though assumed, the party had been known in the same parish during three years' residence there, was held good for the purpose of conferring a settlement (m). So where the party had lodged in the parish for sixteen weeks before, passing by a name which he had assumed on account of having deserted

(x) 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, s. 1. See s. 16.

(y) 26 G. II. c. 33, s. 8.

(2) 21 G. III. c. 33; 44 G. III. c. 77; 48 G. III. c. 77; 59 G. III. c. 134, s. 6; and 6 G. IV. c. 92.

(a) 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, s. 18.

(b) Id. s. 21.

(c) 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, s. 26—-34. (d) 26 G. II. c. 33, s. 6.

(e) 4 G. IV. c. 76, s. 31; 26 G. II. c. 33, s. 18; 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, s. 2. (f) 5 & 6 W. IV. c. 54.

(9) Cowp. 591, Goodright v. Moss; Standen v. Standen, Peake's C. N. P. 45. (h) St. Devereux v. Much Dew Church, 1 Bla. R. 367.

(i) R. v. Stockland, Bur. Set. C. 508. See 4 Burr. 2057; 1 Bla. R. 632, Morris v. Miller.

(k) Standen v. Standen. See 3 G. IV. c. 75, s. 19.

(1) 6 & 7 W. IV. c. 85, s. 4.
(m) R. v. Billinghurst, 3 M. & S.

250.

from the army, and married by that name; for it was not assumed to impose on the woman (n). The like was held where a widow married again by banns published in her maiden name, by which, notwithstand-. ing her first marriage, she had long been known (o). For, to annul a marriage on this account, the name must be assumed fraudulently; and the mere fact that some one individual may be deceived, is not sufficient, e. g., by accidental addition or omission of one of several Christian names, or by its partial variation (p). But where a woman named H. was married by banns in the name of White, that being her name, as entered by mistake in her baptismal register, her marriage was held void for the purpose of obtaining a settlement, as she had never been known by the name of White (q). The description of the woman in a previous order of removal unappealed against as being the wife of the man proves the marriage(r).

As to stating this settlement in examinations and grounds of appeal, see ante, Sections 2 & 3 of this Chapter.

SECTION VI.

OF SETTLEMENT BY APPRENTICESHIP.

S.

By stat. 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, 8, "if any person shall be bound an apprentice (s) by indenture (t), and inhabit (u) in any town or parish, such binding and inhabitation (r) shall be adjudged a good settlement."

Apprenticeship appears to be the earliest mode recognized by law by which an adventitious or personal settlement can be acquired. It has been already observed that seven years is fixed as the limit of the age

(n) R. v. Burton-on-Trent, 3 M. & S. 537.

(0) R. v. St. Faith's Newton, 3 D. & R. 348.

(p) Ibid. See cases collected, 1 B. & Adol. 190.

(g) R. v. Tibshelf (Inh.), 1 B. & Adol. 190, a case of great hardship; for fraud in putting up the banns was negatived, and no one was deceived as to the retrospective effect of 3 G. IV. c. 75, s. 2, on marriages by licence. See Poole v. Poole, 1 Tyr. R. 76; 2 C. & J. 66; and 1 Younge, 331, S. C.; R. v. Waulley, 1 Mood. C. C. 163; R. v. St. John Del

pike (Inh.), 2 B. & Adol. 226.

(r) R. v. Silchester, Bur. Set. C. 551; R. v. Hinxworth, Cald. 42, &c. (s) From "apprendre" 2 East, 298.

(t) According to law, i. e., for seven years, 5 El. c. 4, ss. 26, 31, 41. See Reg. v. Barmston (Inh.), 7 Ad. & E. 858; a case of ante-dating found to be fraudulent: but if for less time, it is not void, though voidable.

(u) i. e. for forty days.

(x) R. v. Linkinhorne, 3 B. & Adol. 418; 6 Ad. & E. 140; Reg. v. Burslem, 11 Ad. & E. 52; 3 P. & D. 38, S. C.

of nurture (y); and by an act of Elizabeth (2), the children of the poor, on obtaining that age, might even be compelled to go into apprenticeship by the officers of the parish in which they are settled, though not resident in or a burden to it (a). However, this has been altogether put an end to (b), and indentures of apprenticeship to a chimneysweeper were first made void if the unhappy subject of them was a boy under eight years old (c), or now, if it is a child under the age of sixteen years (d). No child can be bound apprentice by parish officers till the age of nine (e).

By an earlier act of Elizabeth (f), the qualifications of persons entitled to take and to become apprentices had been regulated. The changes of time and the progress of commerce having made many of its provisions inconvenient, caused its penalties and restrictions to fall into a disuse, from which they were only occasionally revived for the purposes of vexation. They were therefore repealed (g); and all power specially given to justices over apprenticeships contracted subject to the repealed act of 5 Eliz. c. 4, is still reserved to the justices generally (h).

No settlement can now be acquired by apprenticeship to the seaservice, or to a householder exercising the trade of the seas as a fisherman or otherwise, or by any person who at the passing of this act (14 August, 1834) was such an apprentice, in respect of such apprenticeship (i), unless he had served and resided forty days in the parish before the act passed (k).

The contract itself, by which the relation of master and apprentice is formed; the residence under it, and the effects of that residence; its premature termination; and the questions of evidence which arise on the indenture, severally give occasion to numerous appeals. A few observations, therefore, on each of these particulars are requisite.

Of the Contract of Binding, and Parties thereto.]-1. The contract may be made by any person of more than seven years of age,

(y) See Wangford v. Brandon, Carth. 449; 2 Salk. 482; and 1 Burn's Jus. 28th ed. tit. Apprentices, Sect. II. See ante, Sect. 4 of this Chapter.

(z) 43 El. c. 2, s. 5.

(a) R. v. St. George, Exeter (Inh.), 3 Ad. & E. 373; 5 N. & M. 61. (b) 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 12, 13. (c) 28 G. III. c. 48, R. v. Hipswell, 8 B. & Cr. 466; 2 M. & R. 474, S. C. (d) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 85, s. 3, if apprenticed after 1st July, 1842. Till this

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »