in another parish, but when out of work, he returned on two different occasions to the parish of A., and was not only relieved by the officers of that parish, but received money from them to enable him to return to the parish where he lived. The sessions having was not settled in the parish of found that he A., the Court affirmed their decision. The fact of the pauper's remembering himself, when four years of age, in the parish of A., is no evidence that he was born there. Trowbridge, he went, with his wife, to the workhouse at Chatham, where he stayed more than three weeks, during which time he was maintained there by the parish of Chatham, and on going away was furnished by the parish officers of Chatham with one pound in money, and a pair of shoes for him and his wife to return to Trowbridge. He returned thither, and remained there about ten years, when being again out of work, he went to Chatham again, with his wife and family, and stayed there about three weeks in the workhouse, and whilst there, was maintained by Chatham, and at the expiration of that time received one pound in money, and a pair of shoes for himself, his wife, and each of his children, and provisions to return to Trowbridge; at the same time he was desired by the Chatham overseers not to return to Chatham again without an order or pass. He then returned to Trowbridge, at which place he was afterwards relieved, and thereupon moved, by order of the magistrates to Chatham. The parish registers of Chatham were searched by the pauper, but no entry was found of his baptism, nor of any person bearing his name. BAYLEY J. If the decision in the case of Rex v. Chatham (a), establishes as a principle of law, that the bare fact of giving relief to a pauper while he is resident within a parish, is no evidence that he was settled there, it is manifest that the facts proved in this case could lead to no other legitimate conclusion, than that which the sessions have drawn from them. It is not necessary to decide in this case, whether the giving relief to a party resident within a parish, may or may not under certain circumstances be evidence from which the sessions may conclude that the party so relieved was settled in the relieving parish. For assuming that there was some evidence in this case to warrant such a finding, it was for the sessions to draw their own conclusion from the whole evidence. They have done so, and I think there is nothing stated in this case to warrant us in saying that their conclusion is wrong. It appears that the pauper first recollected himself in the workhouse at Chatham, and being in the workhouse at Chatham, the parish officers of that parish were bound to maintain him until they could ascertain where his settlement was, and that might be a very difficult matter. The relief given under such circumstances, was no evidence that the pauper was settled in the parish, because the parish officers were bound by law to maintain him until they could ascertain where his settlement was. It is true that the pauper on two occasions returned to Chatham, and was not only relieved by that parish, but had money given to him to take him back to Trowbridge, which, it has been said, was equivalent to relieving him, while resident in another parish. Relief given to a pauper while he is resident in another parish, is a distinct acknowledgment by the relieving parish, that they believe him to be settled there. But giving the pauper money to enable him to remove to Trowbridge, was no acknowledgment by Chatham that he was settled there, Assuming, therefore, that it was questionable upon the evidence, whether the relief was given to the pauper as a settled inhabitant or not, and that the sessions might have inferred that the pauper had been relieved by Chatham, because he was settled there, that was not a necessary conclusion. Being a question of fact, it was for the sessions to draw their conclusion, and I cannot say that their (a) 8 East, 498. 2 Bott, pl. 833. decision is wrong. The mere fact of the pauper's having first remembered himself in Chatham, when he was four or five years of age, is not any evidence of his having been born in that parish. Upon the whole, I think that the sessions have drawn the proper conclusion from the evidence, and that their order must be confirmed. -Order of sessions confirmed. 191. Rex v. Edwinstowe, M. T. 9 G. 4.—8 Ę. & C. 671.-Upon an appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Sarah Dewick and her two children were removed from the parish of Mansfield, in the county of Nottingham, to the parish of Edwinstowe, in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :-The pauper, at that time resident in Mansfield, applied for relief to Mr. Bullivant, the overseer of the appellant parish, at a public-house in Mansfield, a distance of seven miles from Edwinstowe, on a market day; he gave her three shillings as relief, and said if she wanted further relief she must apply to him again at Edwinstowe, and he would give it her. A fortnight after the pauper went for relief to Edwinstowe, when she saw Mr. Bullivant and Mr. Sykes, the other overseer. They then refused to give her relief, saying, she must throw herself upon the parish of Mansfield.- BAYLEY J. I agree that if there be not any premises to warrant the conclusion to which the justices at sessions have come, we are bound to reverse their decision. I do not say that, from the facts stated in the case, I should have drawn the same conclusion which the justices have done. But it was a question of fact; and it was for them to draw their conclusion from the evidence. Before we reverse their decision, we must see clearly that they were wrong. It is not sufficient that the evidence in support of their conclusion is slight. The question is, Whether there was any evidence to warrant the justices in coming to the conclusion? It appears that at the time when the relief was given, the parishofficer was at a distance from home. It is possible, however, that he may have known that the pauper was settled in Edwinstowe. did not know it, he might have said to the pauper, "I cannot tell "whether you are settled in the parish or not, and I give you this "whether you are settled there or not." But he gave the relief in an unqualified manner, and seems to have acted on the principle, that he conceived there was an obligation on his part to grant relief, and a right in her to demand it. It was for the sessions to draw their conclusion from these facts. There was some evidence upon which they might exercise their discretion; and though I might, perhaps, have come to a different conclusion, I think we are not at liberty to reverse their decision.-LITTLEDALE J. I concur in the judgment delivered by my brother Bayley, entirely on the ground that there were some premises to warrant the sessions in coming to the conclusion to which they have come. The evidence was undoubtedly very slight; but it was for the sessions to draw their conclusion from it, and having done so, I think we ought not to disturb their decision. -PARKE J. Upon the evidence stated in this case, I should have come to a different conclusion. But it is for the sessions and not for us to draw the conclusion from the evidence given, and they having done so, I think their decision ought not to be disturbed.-Order of sessions confirmed. If he X Relief given to a pauper not residing in the relieving parish is prima facie evidence of his being settled there; but the sessions are not bound upon such evidence only to find that he is settled in the relieving the pauper resident in another parish, the sessions having quashed the order of removal, this Court refused to disturb the decision. Relief given by and though one 192. Rex v. Yarwell, T. T. 10 G. 4. 9 B. & C. 894.-Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby T. Ireson, his wife and children, were removed from the parish of Yarwell in the county of Northampton, to the parish of Stibbington, in the county of Huntingdon; the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case:-The respondent proved by the pauper and his wife that the appellants had, about twenty-eight or twenty-nine years ago and at three or four times subsequently, the last time being ten years ago, relieved the pauper and his family while they were residing in the respondent parish. When they wanted relief they applied to the parish officers of the appellant parish for work, and as they could not find it for them, they allowed the family 12s. a week. It was the pauper's wife who applied for relief upon all those occasions except one, when the application was made by the pauper himself. He had been once examined by the appellants, and stated that he had been an apprentice in their parish. The appellants also, within the last six years, and while the pauper was resident in the respondent parish, paid the expenses of his wife's confinement in a lunatic asylum at Peterborough.-BAYLEY J. The sessions have sent this case for our consideration, without telling us what question they wish to be answered. They have stated a strong primâ facie case, from which they were at liberty to draw the conclusion that the pauper was settled in the parish of Stibbington, but they were not bound to do so. It was purely a question for them. The pauper might have been examined as to the fact whether he had ever gained, or whether there was a reasonable ground to conclude that he had gained a settlement in the appellant parish by apprenticeship, or otherwise. If he was not examined as to that, the sessions may have refused to act on presumptive evidence of settlement, when the respondents might have proved a settlement actually gained by the pauper in the appellant parish.-LITTLEDALE J. I am of the same opinion.-PARKE J. If the sessions intended to ask us whether there was primâ facie evidence of a settlement in the appellant parish, I should have answered that there was, and that they ought to have acted upon it. If they asked me whether they were bound to do so, I should answer they were not.-Order of sessions confirmed. 193. Rex v. Coleorton, T. T. 11 G. 4 & 1 W. 4.—1 B. & Ad. 25. -Upon appeal against an order of justices removing Joseph Allen, his wife and children, from the parish or township of Merevale in Leicestershire to the parish or township of Coleorton in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case :-The pauper's father died when the pauper was seven years of age, and left him residing with his mother in the parish of Coleorton, where, after her husband's death, she and several of her children were relieved during a long period, and while resident in the said parish. During this time, also, one of the children (the pauper's brother) was bound out by the parish of Coleorton into a third parish. But throughout the whole of the above time the mother of the pauper, with her children, received relief from the parish of Thringstone, whilst they were resident (as before mentioned) in Coleortor; and the pauper's mother having died in that parish, was buried there at the expense of the parish of Thringstone. Upon this evidence the court of quarter sessions, Of the Adjudication.-2 Bott, pl. 858. 194. Rex v. Maulden, E. T. 9 G. 4.—8 B. § C. 78.-This was an appeal against an order of two justices, which was in the following words: "To the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of "Maulden, in the county of Bedford, we, G. C. and T. B., clerks, "two of his Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the said county, by virtue of the powers vested in us by an act of the 5 G. 4. 66 (a) 9 B. & C. 894. (b) 8 East, 498. 2 Bott, pl. 833. An order of justices made under the 5 G. 4. c. 71. stated, "that the justices, after due ex amination had on oath, having and overseers of M. to pay to 66 "entitled An Act to amend several acts for the better care and "maintenance of lunatics, being paupers or criminals in England,' "and by desire of the visiting justices of the General Lunatic Asylum "at Bedford, in the said county, after due examination had on oath, "having adjudged the legal place of settlement of Elizabeth Cole, "now a pauper lunatic confined in the said lunatic asylum at Bed"ford, to be in the parish of Maulden, do hereby by virtue of the powers vested in us by an act of the 48 G. 3. entitled An Act for "the better care and maintenance of lunatics, being paupers or crimi"nals, in England,' require you, the churchwardens and overseers "of the poor of the said parish of Maulden, to pay to the treasurer "of the said asylum the sum of 107. 16s., being the amount due for twenty-four weeks' maintenance, medicine, and clothing of the said Elizabeth Cole, at the rate of 9s. per week, as fixed upon by the visiting justices of the said asylum, from the 2d November 1826 "to the 19th April 1827, the day of making this our order; and we "do further order and direct you, the churchwardens and overseers "of the poor of the parish of Maulden, to pay, from the date hereof, "the sum of 9s. per week, or such other weekly sum, to the treasurer "of the said asylum for the time being, as shall from time to time "be fixed upon by the visiting justices of the asylum as a fit rate of "maintenance, medicine, and clothing of the said Elizabeth Cole, 66 asylum 101. 16s." there was no during so long time as Elizabeth Cole shall be and remain in the "asylum." It appeared by the notice of appeal that the appellants appealed against the order as an order of settlement and maintenance. The sessions having confirmed this order, Bolland, in last Hilary term, obtained a rule to shew cause why the original order, and the order of sessions, should not be severally quashed for their insufficiency, upon the ground, first, that it did not contain any distinct adjudication that the pauper was settled in Maulden, and, secondly, that it was retrospective.-Lord TENTERDEN C. J. I think that on reading the order and the notice of appeal we must assume, that there was but one order and one proceeding. The appellants by the notice of appeal, treat the order in question as an order of settlement. That being so, the first question is, Whether there appears on the face of the order a sufficient adjudication by the justices, that the pauper's last place of settlement was in Maulden? The justices say in their order," that they by virtue of the powers vested in them by the stat. other order, and, "5 G. 4., after due examination had on oath, having adjudged the therefore, the "legal place of settlement of the pauper to be in Maulden." Now it words, "havis conceded, that if the justices had said, "that they do adjudge," ing adjudged," it would have been sufficient. As the appellants, however, by their must be understood as words notice of appeal treat the order in question as an order of settlement, of present adju- we must assume that there was no other order made; and if that be dication, and so, we cannot understand the words "having adjudged" to have been that the order used in any other sense than that which would have belonged to the words" do adjudge." The next question is, Is the order good altogether? It is objected to as being retrospective. The effect of a retrospective order is to bring on inhabitants, who ought not to bear it, a charge incurred during a former period. It is quite unnecessary that the justices should have the power of making a retrospective order, for an order for the payment of a weekly maintenance might have been made as soon as the pauper was placed in the asylum, and as there is not any necessity that the justices should have such power, was good in that so much was retrospect ive was bad. but that it was good for the residue. |