to a poor perfon, fuch perfon only (and not any other of his family) is obliged to go into the work-houfe, under the 9. Geo. 1. c. 7. 1. 4. Rex v. Haigh, i. 372. Fl. 466 43. On an order of relief, " to pay

"unto the faid S. F. the fum of "one fhilling and fix pence week.

ly, and every week, &c." the fum thus ordered to be paid is due at the beginning of the week, Rex v. Fearnley, i. 370. pl. 464 44. Where a baftard child is born in a parish, and the parents neglect to provide neceffaries for its fuftenance, the parish-officers are obliged to afford it relief, without an order of justices for that purpose, Hays v. Bryant, Bryant, i. 371. pl. 465 45. In what manner the families of militia men fhall be relieved (See MILITIA-MEN and SOLDIERS). i. 377. to 383

49. By 17. Geo. 2. c. 5. "all per"fons who run away and leave "their wives or children charge"able to the parish, are rogues and vagabonds," (See VA"GRANTS), i. 332. pl. 418 50. A common foldier billeted in a different parifh from that in which his family refides, is not a vagrant as running away from his family, although he is able and refuse to maintain them, and they become chargeable to the parish : but this cafe is provided for by the 19. Geo. 3. c. 72. (See MILITIAMEN AND SOLDIERS),

i. 333

pl. 424

able may by warrant remove fuch perfon to the place of his laft legal fettlement," ii. 753. pl. 658

2. By 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. f. 3. if fuch perfon shall refufe to go, or fhall not remain in the parish "to which he is removed, but fhall return of his own accord to the

3.

parish from whence he was re"moved, a jullice where the offence fhall be committed may "fend fuch perfon to the houfe of "correction as a vagabond," ii. 754. pl. 6:9 By 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. f. 3. "if the overfeers of the parish to "which fuch perfon fhall be fo re, "moved refufe to receive him, a "justice may bind fuch overfeer 66 to the affizes or feffions to be in"dicted for his default," ii. 754pl. 660

"of4. By 3. Will. 3. c. 11. f. 10. "ficers refuling to receive a pau. per removed by warrant of two juftices fhall forfeit five pounds to "the ufe of the poor, to be levied by distress," ii. 754. pl. 661

11. The juftices cannot remove a pauper from an extra-parochial place, Forest of Dean. Linton, ii. 756. pl. 666 12. The juftices may fend a woman to her maiter with whom the lived as a hired fervant, Rex v. Gravejend, ii. 756. pl. 657

13. The juftices must remove a pauper to the place of his last legal fet tlement; for they cannot order the parifh-officers of fuch place to relieve him in the parish where he refides, Rex v. Raviflock, ii- 757. pl. 668

14. The juflices cannot make an order of removal" to continue till "the next fellion," Pancras v. Rumbold, ii. 757. pl. 670

15. A fingle juftice may receive the complaint of the overfeer, but two juftices must make the order of removal, Rex. Weftwood, ii. 757pl. 671 16. And fuch order must be figned by the two juftices in the prefence of each other, Rex v. Howarth, ii. 769. pl. 701 17. But an order of removal figned by two juftices feparately and in different counties, is only voidable and not void, Rex v. Stotfold, ii. 871. pl. 856 18. The two juftices cannot remove more than one family by the fame order, Chewton v. Compton, ii. 758. pl. 672

19. If a parish lies within two counties, and an overfeer be appointed by the justices of one of the coun

ries, any two juftices may remove a pauper into that part of the parith for which no overfeer is particularly appointed; for as to this purpofe the perfon cholen by the one county is the officer of the whole parith, Rex v. Merevall, ii. 758. pl. 673

III.

THE

Styles of

THE JUSTICES.

20. An order of removal need not flate that the juftices were of 12 divifion where the pauper lived'; for the ftatute 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. is in this refpect only directory, Anonymous, ii. 760. pl. 675 21. But before the ftatutes 26. Geo. 2. c. 27. and 7. Geo. 3. c. 21. it was neceflary to flate one of the justices figning an order of removal to be of the quorum, Albri bion v. Skipton, ii. 761. pl. 678 22. The justices must be fly led in the order "juflices of the peace," Rex v. Upian, ii. 761. pl. 677 And they must be styled juftices

of the pence

IN and FOR the

county" for an oder Itating them to be juftices of the peace in the county only is bad, Rex v. Qwiton, ii. 761. pl. 679 24. So if an order be directed to the officers of two different parifaes, and the justices be stated to be juftices for the county aforejaid,” it is bad, Rex v. Stepney, ii. 762. pl. 680

25. But an order of removal ftating the juftices to be juftices of the peace in and for the county by the common appellation of the county, as "Shropire" inftead of "Salop,' is fufficient, Rex v. Madeley, ii. 763. pl. 681

26. So where two juftices, in an order removing Aan Day from Andover

27. An order of removal must state that it was made upon complaint ; for it is the complaint that gives the justices authority to remove,and is therefore not matter of form only, but of fubitance, Rex v. Hareley, ii. 766. pl. 691

28. And therefore the feffions cannot amend this defect under the 5. Geo. 2. c. 19. Great Bedwin v. Wilcot, ii. 765. pl. 693 29. The order muft not only ftate that it was made on complaint, but that it was made on the complaint of the parish-officers, Wefton Rivers v. St. Peter's, ii. 763. p. 684 30. And the juftices can only remove thofe perfons of whom the parishofficers complain as likely to become chargeable, Rex v. Newcingii. 764. pl. 687

ton,

31. An order of removal made on the complaint of the churchwardens and overfeers of the borough of, &c. is good; for though a brough may contit of feveral parishes, and fo uncertain to which parith the order relates, yet that shall not be intended, Macclesfield v. Leithfrith,

ii. 763. pl. 683

32. An order directed to the parishofficers of two parishes, ftating, that whereas complaint has been made by them unto us, &c. without flating which of the two parishes made the complaint, is gocd; for if both complain, it must be upon

the

the complaint of the right parif, Spalding v. St. John Baptift, ii. 764. pl. 685 33. Same point, Horfham v. Henfield, ii. 765. pl. 689 34. An order of removal was flated to be made " upon hearing the "differences, allegations, and "proofs, &c." and the Court held the order bad, for thefe words are not tantamount to a complaint,Shagford v. North Bovey, ii. 764. pl. 686 35. An order of removal also must fhew, that the perfons to be removed by it actually came into the parish and endeavoured to fettle ii. there, Rex v. Southmarfien, 755. pl. 690 36. Therefore when an order fet forth, that "H. Tate and his wife "do endeavour to intrude into the

parish of, &c. and are likely to become chargeable," it was quafhed; for unless they had actually come into the parish, there could not be any likelihood of their becoming chargeable, Rev. Graff ii. 764. pl. 688

ham, 37. An order of removal nced not ftate in terms that the complaint was made on oath, Rex v. Standish, ii. 766. pl. 692 38. For if the order state " upon aue proof thereof we do adjudge,&c." it is fufficient, ii. 767. notis

V.

OF

the

EXAMINATION.

40. Therefore the perfons complained of ought to have notice of the complaint, and to be heard against it before they are removed, Anoii. 767. pl. 694

nymous. 41. The examination must be taken by the fame two juftices who fign the order of removal, Rex v. Wykes,ii. 768. pl. 697

42. And they must take the examination, and fign the order in the prefence of each other, Rex q. Howarth, ii. 769. pl. 70%

43. Therefore an order of removal ftating that the examination was taken before us, or one of us," is bad, Ware v. Stanstead, ii. 767. pl. 695

44.

45.

So alfo an order of removal made by two juftices in the prefence of each other on an examination taken and tranfmitted to them by juftices of another county, is bad, although fuch examination be verified by oath that it was duly taken, Rex v. Coln St. Aldavin's, ii. 768. pl. 700

And it feems, that if two juftices take the examination of a pauper relative to his fettlement, but do not remove him, and the pauper afterward die or become injane, two other juftices cannot remove his family on fuch examination, Rex ii. 771. pl. 704 v. Erifwell, 46. But an order of ren oval figned by two juftices feparately and in different counties, is not void, but only voidable by appeal to the next feffions, Rex v. Stotfold, i. 871. pl. 856

47. It is not neceffary to ftate in an order of removal, that the pauper was fummoned, Rex v. Wykes, ii. 763. pl. 698

48. Nor is it neceffary in all cafes to ftate that the pauper was examined; but if it can be it is fit it fhould be fo, though not abfolutely nccellary, Anonymous, ii. 767.

pl. 694 49. There

53. The juices, in an order of removal, muft exprefsly ADJUDGE, that the premifes are true, and that the place, to which the pauper is ordered to be removed, is the place of his laft legal fettlement; for it is not fufficient that this fact appears in the flatement of the complaint, Bury v. Arundel, ii. 772. pl. 706 54. Same point, Rex v. Middleham, ii. 774. pl. 712 Egburn v. Hartley ii. 775. pl. 717 Rex v. Welwood, ii. 775. pl. 719 57. Same point, Ufculm v. Cliftydon, ii. 777. pl. 723

55. Same point, Wentley,

56. Same point,

5S. But an adjudication of laft jettlement is tantamount to place of lat legal fettlement, Trowbridge v. Weften, ii. 772. pl. 705

59. But an order, and we do alfo adjudge that the loft legal place "of the faid A. B. is at C. in the "county of D." leaving out the word jettlement, is bad, Rex v. Warnbill, ii. 776. pl. 722 60. So the order muft adjudge that the perfons were likely to become chargeable; for ftating them as complained of by the parifh-officers as likely to become chargeable, is not fufficient, Suddlecomb v. Bursof, ii. 773. pl. 709 61. And if the perfon to be removed be a certificate perfon, the juftices mut adjudge that he is actually chargeable, Malden v. Flet-wick, ii. .773. pl. 710

62. But fuch an order is good without ftating that the certificate was allowed, Rex v. Newton, ii. 773. pl. 711 63. An order of removal adjudging a pauper to be laft legally fettled in the parish of 4. and ordering him and his family to be removed, is bad, Rex v. Johnfen, ii. 773. pl. 708

་་

64. But an order adjudging a pauper to be fettled at the parish of 4. and ordering him and his wife and his fon of one year old to be removed to the faid parifh, is good, Hobey v. Kingsbury, ii. 776. pl. 721 65. An order of removal to remove a wife," and whereas, on oath made by the faid E. F. it appears that her husband was laft "legally fettled at H. thefe there. "fore, &c." is bad; for there is no adjudication that the huiband was laft legally fettled at H. Rexv. Hackney, ii. 772. pl. 707 66. An order of removal ftating that the perfon to be removed & will