Page images

disbursed, but does not say by whom.-PER CURIAM. It is necessarily intended, by the churchwardens.

586. Reg. v. Odam, Mich. 12. Ann. Salk. 124.–An To pay “nine order of bastardy was made for the defendant to pay nine pounds in gross, pounds in gross immediately upon tight of the order, weekly," is and after that so much weekly : and it was held good ; good. for by the statute the justices are to make order for relief of the parish, and keeping of the child, by payment of ". Vent. 121. money weekly, or other sustentation, and this might be only indemnifying the parish for money laid out before the reputed father could be found.

587. Rex v. England, Hilary Term, 8. Geo. Strange, 503. The order mun -Two orders of bastardy were returned ; one made by stace the sex or two justices, and an original order made at the sessions : name of the

bastard, and both were quashed; the first, because the sex of the child or its name were not mentioned in it; and the order of sessions was quashed, because there being an order of two justices before, the sessions had no jurisdiction but upon appeal.

588. Rex v. Godfrey, EasterTerm, 10. Geo. Lord Raymond, The order muft 1363.-An order made upon the defendant to maintain adjudge in a bastard child was quashed, because, though in the com- child was born. plaint it was alledged that the child was born in the parish of Hitchin in Hertfordshire, yet there was no ad- S. C. 1. Sefr. judication by the justices, nor any words of the justices Set, and Rem from whence it could be collected in what parish the 36. child was born,

Stra. 437 1. Bar. K. B. 326.

589. Rex v. Mutford, Mich. Term, 10. Geo. 1. Cases An order deSett. 150.-Motion to qualh an order of bastardy, be- fcribing the cause not said the child was chargeable to the parish, chargeable to but to an hamlet.- Per CURIAM. If it was an hamlet ar bamles, is that maintained its own poor, it had been good ; but this bed, not appearing, it was quashed.

See pl. 164. 590. Rex v. Street, Mich. Term. 1. Geo. 2. 2. Str. 788. An order of An order of bastardy was made to pay fo much weekly till maintenance the child was nine years old, if it should fo long live: and till the child is allowed to be a good order, because it cannot be intended nine years old,

is good. able to provide for itself sooner.

591. Rex v. Childers, Eafter Term, 3. Geo. 2. 1. Par. An order reK. B. 326.-On a rule to thew cause why an order of two

quiring the fac

ther to pay fo justices for the maintenance of a baftard child, and an or- much to the pas sich, is not a sufficient adjudication that the child was born in such panith. Ff 2



der of feffions confirming the same, should not be quaihed, CHILDERS, it was objected, that it was not directly adjudged that the child was born in the parish (of Stap.churst), and yet

the order requires the defendant to pay the sum of 455. to the church wardens of that parish to reimburse them. It was answered, that it doth fufficiently appear in the order that the child was born there; for it adjudges, that the defendant should pay this fum for the charges which “the parish of Staplehurstwere at upon account of the woman's lying in there. But THE COURT said, that they could not allow of inferences to give the justices jurisdiction; and accordingly quaihed both the orders.

The justices, in

592. Rex v. Churchuardens of Hexham, Hilary, 5. Gen. 2. an order of bar MSS.-Two justices made an order on the detendants, tardy, must

that they thould maintain a bustard child until the expressly ado

mother ihould be able to provide for it. The mother not judge that such child was born being able to keep it, the father not being known, and in the parish. the child being likely to perish, Draper moved to

quash this order, becaule it did not appear on oath, that the child was born in the parilh of Hexham ; neither had the justices made any adjudication of it in the order. The order was quaihed at the end of the Term, no cause being thewn.

child out ap

The reputed 593. Rex v. IVilley, Mich. Term, 8. Geo. 2. MISS.-An father cannot be order upon defendant, adjudging him to be the father of ordu.ed to pay a baitard child begotten on the body of Ann Parry, refuture day for quired the mother to maintain the child till feven years the purpose of old, and ordered the defendant to pay one shilling per binding the weck during that time, and at the end of the term to pay

to the overleers of the poor of Bruckall in the county of prentice.

Somerset (where the child was chargcable) the sum of three See Comb. 448. pounds to bind the child apprentice.-PER Curiam. The

justices have authority to order the father to pay a gross (a) Salk. 124. lum for the expence of the woman lying-in (a); for this Ante, pl. 586. is for the immediate indemnity of the parish. But it has

been often determined, that they cannot direct a sum of money to be paid at a future day for what, perhaps, may

never be necessary; and if the order were good in all other The birth must points, yet it must be quaihed qurud this. But the order be arijualgeat to let forth, that complaint was made that the child was born be within the within the parish cf Bruckall, and the justices adjudged that parish to which the child had become chargcable there: an objection was Pulier is ordered. made, that they have not adjuded that the child was

born within the pariin.-PER CURTIM. The order is bad ina toto for this fault. The birth is the foundation of the jurisdiction, and this isust be directly adjudged: the



complaint might be false ; and for what appears, the child might be chargeable to the parish only as a foundling not born there. We cannot take orders by intendment. If justices exercise a jurifdi&tion, they must shew them. selves intitled to it.

Car, 195

post, p. 440.

594. Rex v. Howlett, Easter, 13. Gro. 2. MSS.--Order To pay for re

I et of the goedjudging Howlett the father of a bastard child, and or

vernors, &c. dering him to maintain it for the relief of the governor bad. “and guardian for the poor of Colchesier :" and for not S.C. 2. Sett. saying “ for the relief of the poor,” it was quaihed.

S.C. 1. Will.35 595. Rex v. Gravesend, Easter Term, 15. Geo. 2. MSS. The justices -Two exceptions were taken to an order of two juf- may order the tices concerning a bastard. First, That it is no other- payment of a

sum in gross. wife affirmed that the child was born at Graveser:d than 1. Sid. 326. by a “Whereas,” which is recital only (a).-SECONDLY, !. Salk. 124. That the reputed father is ordered to pay a fum in gross s.c Comyns, for maintenance and other incident charges.- Per Cu- 9?: RIAM. The whole order is the words of the justices, (a) Sed vide and in this case a fufficient adjudication of the fact. As to the other objection, if it had been for maintenance only, it would have been too general; but as it is for incident charges too, it is good, and like the case of Reg. (b) Ante, v. Odban (b),

pl. 586. 596. Rex v. Moravia, Easier Term, 15. Geo. 2. MSS.- Adjudication Two exceptions weretaken toan order of bastardy. First, that the child It recited, that the child was baptized in the parish, and his baptized in did not adjudge that it was born there. SECONDLY, The that 361. be paid, justices adjudge thirty-fix pounds to be paid, part whereof

part whertof had already been paid for the maintenance of the child had been already and other incident charges and expences. But those ex

expended for

maintenance of ceptions were over-ruted: for, PER CURTAM, the provi- the child and fion of the statute of 18. Eliz. c. 3. is, that care shall be other incident taken to relieve the parish where the child was born, and charges, held for that purpose the juițices are to make provision ac- good. cording to their discretion; therefore it is necessary that it thould appear in what parish the child was born, their jurisdictions arising from thence: and further, they are to charge the reputed father or mother for the maintenance of the child ; and as the order says she was delivered of a child baptized in the parish, that by a reasonable construction may be taken to be the place of the birth of the child : and as to its being a recital, that is fufficient; for in orders of removal it is, “Whereas upon complaint, and that is looked upon as affirming a fact done; so 16 whereas such a child was baptized in such a parish,” is



MORAVIA. a sufficient affirmation of the fact(a). As to the thirty-fix (a) Sed vide pounds for maintenance and other incident charges, Rex v. Pilts, these words “ other incident charges” must be incident to infra, pl. 598. the maintenance; and the rather, as a part thereof is

already paid.—WRIGHT, Justice, faid, that at first he was of a different opinion, and thought the words incident

charges” extremely general; but on looking into it, he found there were orders as general as this is. The order was confirmed.

The justices 597. Rex v. Felton and I'enman, Easter, 31. Geo.2. MSS, cannot ordera -On motion for an information againit defendants for to be delivered taking away a bastard child from its mother, and delito the care of vering it to the father, a man of fortune-LORD MANSils mother. FIELD said: Neither the putative father nor mother had

the legal right of guardianship; and if the putative father, having an order of bastardy made on him to contribute to the maintenance of the child, has a mind to take the child and provide for it, the parish cannot infift on his paying towards the maintenance while in his custody; and that he thought in this case, where the justices had ordered the child to be delivered to the mother, he (the justice) had done wrong, the father being in good circumstances, and the mother poor; an i that the circum

stances of the parents 1hould direct in these cases. An order of 598. Roxu. Pitts, Easier Term, 21. Geo. 3. Dougl. 662.bastardy, Nat. On Friday the 4th of May BEARCROFT obtained a rule to ing, "Whereas shew cause why an order of bastardy inade upon the defenit hath appeared dant by two justices for the county of Hereford, and conto us, &c."

firmed' by the court of quarter sessions for that county, press adjudi. should not be quashed. The objections he then stated cation that the were, First, 1 hat, in the caption, the two justices were perfon charged said to be " residing near unto the limits of the parish of, is the putative « &c." and the words of the statute are, “ in or next unto father, is void.

“ the limits, &c.” SECONDLY, That the order contain

ed no express adjudication, and was therefore void, ac(6)z. Sid. 363. cording to the cate of Pex v. Perkae (b). On Saturday Ante, pl. 574. the igth of May Bower shewed caufe. Upon examining

the original order, it appeared that the word in the caption was “ next' and not “ near;" and there remained, therefore, only the second objection to be confider

ed. The order was, in a great measure, in the same form (c) 1. Burn. with the precedent in Burn's Justice (c), but with the 189 omifsion of the following clause: “ We therefore, upon

" examination of the caute and circumstances of the pre“ mises, as well upon the oath of the said A. B. as other"! wise, do hereby adjudge him the laid C. D. to be the re


without an ex

[ocr errors]

"puted father of the said bastard child."-BOWER con- Rex v. Pitis.
tended, that as the statute of Elizubith does not pre-
scribe any particular form, if enough appear on the face
of the order to authorize the act of the justices in charg-
ing the supposed father, that is sufficient. The case in
Siderfin is not so decisive as it would seein to be from the
manner in which it is stated by Burn (a); for it appears, (a), 1. Burd,
in Siderfin, that the objection on which the order was 193.
quathed was, that the sum was unreasonably small (viz.
2d. per week); and this point about the adjudication is
mentioned after the decision; and then, without any
positive opinion of the Court upon it. The same prin-
ciple must govern with regard to orders of bastardy and
orders of removal, and none of the determinations upon
orders of removal will be found to warrant the present
objection. In Rexa. Westwood (b), there was nothing (b) 1. Stra. 73.
in the order to supply the want of an express adjudi-
cation. The same obfervation applies to Rex v. Min-
chinhampion (c); for it was not at all stated there, that the (6) 2. Serr.
pauper was likely to become chargeable. In Stallinburgh Caf. 92.
i'. Haxhay (d) the words only were, we do believe;">

» 3. Burn, 475.

and Burr. in IValtham Magna v. Waltham Parva (e),

as we are Settl. Cal. credibly informed ;” and in Berry v. Arundel (f), p. 316. “ !Whereas complaint hath been made to us.In the present (d) 3. Burn, case the justices have expressly faid, Ilhereas it hath " appeared to us, &c.” and in Suddlecomb v. Burwash (g) 1. Seff

. . Lord Holt said, that was sufficient; and the fame thing was afterwards determined in a case of Reg. v. Dai-(e) 3. Burn, nal (h), mentioned in the Report of Suddlecomb v. Bur- loc. cit. wan.-BEARCROFT, on the other side, infifted, that the 91. Salk. adjudication is the most important and an indispensable 479. part of the order, and cannot be supplied by implication. (3) s. Salk, It is true, the Court is not so itrict with regard to orders 491. of justices, as in the case of convictions; but still, it (6) Easter, must appear upon the order, that the justices had an au-2. Ann. thority for what they did; and without an adjudication they have no authority. They act both as jury and judges, and the order must contain both a verdiét and judgment. In indictments founded on the common law, nothing can be supplied by inference; and à fortiori, nothing to material as the adjudication can be intended in the case of particular jurisdictions created by fiatute. If defects of this fort could be cured by intendment, no order would ever have been held to be bad. The Court will pay regard to precedents long established, and approved; and this order, though framed after the precedent in Burn, has left out the most essential part. In



Caf. 131.

Ff 4

« PreviousContinue »