Page images
PDF
EPUB

OERNARD's he marries the grandmother, being of ability, is, because CASE.

by the marriage he hath acquired and got the means which the grandmother had, out of which means the child is to be maintained; and so transit cum onere, he must take his wife with this charge and burthen: but there is no reason in law to charge the husband in this principal cafe, because he had no means at all with her in marriage ; and where the grandmother is unable and marries with a man of ability, he is not to be charged. – WHITLOCKE, Jultice. The justices of peace have done well in making this order against the grandfather, he being now become a man of ability, and that by the care and industry of his wife: he added also, that if he had been at feffions with them, he would have made the same order:-CROKE,

Juftice, was clearly against him in this. A femo covert

399. Custodes v. Julies, Trinity, 3. Car. 2. Styles, 283.cannot be or.

SERJE ANT BERNARD moved to discharge an order of eered to keep, feffions made against a feme covert to keep a grandchild of her grandchild.

her's, because a feme covert was not bound by such an order. - ROLLE, Chief Justice, answered, that her husband is bound to maintain his wife's grandchild by the statute 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7.; but the wife only who is covert, and not the husband, being charged by the order, therefore let the order be qualhed (a).

400. Waltham v. Sparkes, Mich. 6. Will. & Mary, Skinparish of A.

566.-Obligation, with condition to fave the parish 3. his wife

and of Shalford harmles from John Godion, his wife and chilchildren, one ng dren. Joseph the son of John Godion, born at the time the which, born at obligation was entered into, had a wife and children,

whom he could not maintain, and the parish, by a jusbend was enter. tice's order, was directed to allow two shillings per week and is not able' to Jeleph for the maintenance of him and his family. to maintain his Action was brought upon this bond, and the condition children, the was held to be broken; for though it does not extend to bond isforfeited, the grandchildren of John Godion, become chargeable, yet S.C. Comt 321: their father J¢le;h, who is by nature bound to maintain

them, being unable to do so, he is in that respect impo

Bond to save the

[ocr errors]

harmless from

the time the

110.

(a) SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE has adopted the law of these cases.

By the interpretation," says he, " which the courts of law have made “ on the facutes of 43. Eliz. €. 2. " and 5. Geo. 1. c. 8. if a mother " or a grandmother marries again, and Or was before suclo second marriage of “ fufficient ab.lity to keep the child,

“ the hufband shall be charged to “ maintain it ; for this being a debt " of her's when single, thall, like " others, extend to charge the huf" band: but at her death, the rela. “tion being disolved, the hutband " is under no farther obligation." 1. Black, Com. 448, 442.

tent, grow

tent, and chargeable to the parish, and he is within the WALTHAM,

SPARKES. express words of the condition.-And it was held, that all the children of John Godion, though born after the obligation was entered into, would be within the meaning of the condition; the intent of which was, to secure the parish from any expence or damage by means of the settlement of John Godion (a). 401. Rex v. Jacob Mendes de Breta, Michaelmas Term, A Jew, who

3 Ld. Ray. 699.—The defendant þeing a Jew, has turned his had an only daughter, who was converted from Judaism doors for emand embraced Christianity; whereupon the defendant bracing Cbriftia turned her out of his doors, and refused to allow her any, gniry, is not maintenance. On complaint made to the quarter-ses- compellable by fions, the justices, reciting that the was the daughter of 43. Eliz. c.2. to

maintain her, the defendant, and that he was a man able to maintain her, made an order, founded on the 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7. that the defendant (being very rich) should allow her: twenty Thillings a month for her maintenance, under the penalty of twenty pounds; but it not being therein alledged that she was poor, the order was quashed. In a commentary, however, upon this case, it is said (b), that (b) 1. Black. on her application for relief it was held, she was entitled Com. 449. to none. But this case is now provided for by the legislature (c)

402. Budwath v. Dumply, Hilary Term, 5. Ann. Salk. 123. An order can-An order was made on the parish of Budwath for the not be made for

the maintenance maintenance of a bastard child born in the township of

of a bastard. Dumply. On being removed into the court of king's bench, IT WAS HELV, that the clause in the statute 13. & S. C. Sett

. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. which provides, that diftant townships of large parishes in the northern counties shall respectively provide for their poor under the penalty mentioned in 43. Eliz. c. 2. must be understood with respect to the maintenance of poor and impotent perfons, and not with respect to bastards, who are provided for by other ftatutes. But if a bastard be grown up, and by accident

Rem. 197

(a) In this case, it is said by HOLT, only enact, that parents and cbildren Cbief Justice, that the word children in should mutually maintain each other, the statate of 43. Eliz. c. 2. 1. 7. ex- this ttature 43. Eliz. enlarging this sends to grandebildren, because there branch, extends it to grandfatbers and is the same natural affection; but no grandmot bers, but doch not specify case has occurred in which the fame grandchildren, &c. &c.&c. , has been judiciously determined : and (c) It appears by the Journals of perhaps, fays Dr. Burn, there may the House of Commons of the 18th be fome doubt as to this point; na. February and the i2th March 1701, tural affection descends more strongly that this case was the occasion of than it ascends; and it is observable, passing the statute of 1. Ann. t. 1 that whereas the 39. Eliz, 6. 3. did. c. 30. Ante, page 312. pl. 380.

Y

afrer the death

Comb. 405.

grow impotent, he may be relieved as a poor person within

that statute. A busband can- 403. Reg. v. Clenthan, Trinity, 9. Ann. Foley, 39.not be ordered Sir Peter King moved to quash an order which was to maintain his made for one John Beck to provide for and maintain one daughter in law Ann Wood because he was her father-in-law, the mother of his wife.

being dead. He infifted, that the statute never intended to carry it so far as to oblige the father-in-law to provide for the wife's child after the mother's death.-On the other side it was insisted, that this case is within the words of the statute, which are, “father or grandfather, mother w or grandmother,” to pay

so much, but further this order does set out expressly that the father-in-law had a good portion with his wife, who was the mother of this Ann Wood, which they infifted upon was an equitable reafon to charge him.-PARKER, Chief Justice. I am afraid, if we extend this to a father-in-law that has a portion, it will also extend to one that has nothing with his wife. -THE WHOLE Court were of opinion, that the husband ought to provide for the daughter-in-law during the wife's life in the right of his wife, but that when the wife dies, the relation is dissolved, and he is not by any means obliged to provide for the daughter-in-law after her death; this case therefore is not within the statute of 43. Eliz.c. 2.

-Order qualhed. The husband 404. Reg. v. St. Botolph's, Aldgate, Easter, 10. Ann. thall maintain Foley, 42.-The single question was, Whether the hufHis wife's cbilband of a feme covert Thall be chargeable by 43. Eliz. dren during ber

to maintain her children by her first husband - And IT life.

WAS RESOLVED, he was, during the wife's life, in her right; but not after; and therefore the order takes care

to set out that the wife is alive. If the father is 405. Reg.v. Joyce, Mich. 6. Ann. Vin. title Poor 423: living and un- Order, that the grandfather should keep the grandchild, able, the grand- the father being living but unable to do it; and also to chargeable.

pay so much more money for the time past, while he was chargeable, as well as for the time to come, was con

firmed. A man is not 406. Reav.Dunn, Hilary Term, 12. Ann. MSS.—Anorder hound.to main. of sessions was made, that the defendant should maintain tain his scn's his son's widow, her husband, his son, being dead. The

order being removed into the King's Bench, CHAPPLE S.C. 10. Mod. took an exception that, by the death of the son, the re

lation which she bore to the father ceased : and although the order was quashed, because it was not set forth that the father was of sufficient ability, yet the Court seemed to allow this exception good,

father is

wife.

221.

407. Rex

mo:ber-in-law.

407. Rex v. Munden, Trinity, 5. Geo. 1. Strange, 190.– A son in law Order, reciting that Munden had a good fortune with his is not obliged

to maintain his wife, and that his mother-in-law was poor, therefore he is ordered to provide for her.-Pratt, Chief Justice. The cases which have hitherto been before the Court were s. C. Set. As either where the judges were divided, or where the mat- Rem. 91. ter did not come directly in question, or was only a case at a Judge's chamber. It never came judicially before the whole Court till now. And as it is res integra, on consideration we are all of opinion, that the son-in-law is not bound either within the words or intent of the statute, which provides only for natural parents. By the law of nature, a man was bound to take care of his own father and mother. But there being no temporal obligation to enforce that law of nature, it was found necessary to establith it by act of parliament, and that can be extended no farther than the law of nature went before, and the law of nature does not reach to this case. Order quashed. (a)

408. Rex v. Munday, Trinity, 5: Geo. 1. Fort. 303.- An A person is nos order was made upon him and his wife to maintain his obliged.com wife's mother. It appeared by the order that he had con- maintain his

wife's mother, siderable effects with his wife, and that her mother fell

even in the life into poverty after their marriage.- PER CURIAM. The time of his order must be quashed, for the son-in-law is not with- wife. in the act of parliament; and the wife cannot be of S.C. Set. & ability, because her ettate is a gift to the husband, and he Rem, 91, is a purchaser for a valuable confideration. And the See the case of

BillingNey v. Court observed, that it would be inconvenient if the wife

Critchet, - Thould have children by a former husband.

1. Brown's Car,

in Ch. 268. 409. Rex v. Benoire, Mich. Term, 13. Geo. 1. MSS.- A man is not MR. VERNEY moved for and obtained a rule to shew bound to maina cause why an order of sessions made on the defendant tain his daugh,

ter-in-law. for the maintenance of Mary, his daughter-in-law, 1hould not be qualhed. The exception was, That a S.C. 2. Ld. daughter-in-law is not such a relation as is within the s.c. 2.Setticas,

56. (a) Mr. Burn subjoins an ob- evidently requires the conclusion that fervation to his report of this case, the wife was then living, or they that it does not appear by this re- would be merely nugatory, or superport, whether the wife was alive or fuous; however, the subsequent redead; that perhaps she might be port seems to put it out of the reach dead, and thereby the relation de- of doubt, that the statute does not termined; but by the following re- extend to relations out of the line of port, which is evidently of the same consanguinity; and in the case of case, it appears that she was alive at Tubb o. Harrison, post. pl. 452. it the time the order was made. — The expressly appears that the wife was nature of the reasons used by the Court alive. in this case of the King and Munday

Y 2

43. Eliz.

The nature of

wile.

[ocr errors]

S. C. 2. Str.

Rex v.

43. Eliz. C. 2. f. 7. for there is no relation in blood beBENOIER

tween them, nor any obligation upon him by nature to relieve her; and he cited Rex v. Munday, where it was held, that a son-in-law was not bound to relieve his mother-in-law, which, he said, was stronger than the present case.-In the Hilary Term following the order was quathed, no cause being thewn.

410. Rexv. Kompson, Mich. Term, 7. Geo. 2. Editor's MSS. 43. Eliz.c.2.1.7. - At the general quarter session of the peace held at Stafford only extends to on the 3d ripril 6. Geo.2. upon the complaint of the parish naturaalrelations, and not to re

of Golial against James Kempion the elder, the fact aplacions in law;

peared, and was agreed, by the counsel on both sides, to be and therefore a as follows: In the month of July 1727 Samuel Kemp/on the father is not

younger was married to Elizabeth Griffes, and in a few days bound to main

afterwards went away froin her, and never returned to or tain the son's

cohabited with her. In October 1729 a sentence of divorce

à mensâ et thoro was obtained from the spiritual court of S.C. Serr. Car. Litchfield for adultery committed by the wife, which senS.C. Bar, K.e. tence was produced and read in evidence at the sessions, 327, 364. About fix weeks since the said Elizabeth was delivered

of a child, and no access to her husband was proved from 933

the time of the divorce. She is now become poor and chargeable to the parish of Gosnal, who have appealed to this court for an order on the faid Samuel Kempfon the clder, father of the said Samuel Kempson the younger, who is still living and able to provide for her, to contribute towards the maintenance of his son's wife Elizabeth Kempfon, under the statute 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7.; he the said Samuel Kempson the elder appearing to be of good ability. It is therefore ORDERED by the court, that the said samuel Kempfon the elder do and thall pay one shilling weekly and every week unto his faid daughter-in-law Elizabeth Kemplan towards her relief and maintenance, and continue such payment till further orders.-- This order being removed by certiorari into the King's Bench, MR. ABNEY took several exceptions to it; among which was, FIRST, That the statute 43. Eliz. only extends to natural relations and not to collateral kindred, and cited Rex v. Munday: and, SECONDLY, That an adulteress cannot charge her

husband for necessaries for herself without notice, much a) Morris v.

less thall the husband's father be charged on that acMartin, count. (a)-MR. PARKER, contra, as to the First, said, 12. Geo. r. at that an order had been made (b) upon a man to keep his Guildhall, be.

wife's grand-children, which is a more diftant relation foie Ld. Rayo mund,

than that in the present case, and also to maintain a fon's () Styles, 283. wife. As to the second exception, he contended, that 1. Bulit. 345. the act of the wife could not prejudice the parish, who . Keble, 489.

WCBC

« PreviousContinue »