"become chargeable if permitted "to abide," is bad, Anonymous, ii. 774. pl. 713 67. An order adjudging that the perfon" is likely to become charge"able as we are informed," is bad, Rex v. Waltham Magna, ii. 774. pl. 714

68. An order ftating that the pauper is fettled at fuch a parish" accord "ing to our knowledge," is bad, Rex v.St.MaryOttery, ii.775. pl.716 69. An order of removal ftating that

"on examination we do believe the "fame to be true," without making an adjudication, is bad, Stallingburgh v. Haxhay, ii. 775. pl. 718 70. An order ftating that the pauper may become chargeable, is bad, Teilby. Willerton, ii. 776. pl. 720 71. So an order stating that the pauper is likely to become chargeable, without faying to what parib, is bad, Uffculm v. Clifthydon, ii. 277.

pl. 723 72. But an adjudication that the paupers bave become chargeable, imports that they are chargeable to the parish, Rex v. Honiton, ii. 778.

pl. 724 73. So alfo in an order the words "auho are likely to become charge"able" amount to an adjudication, Rex v. Rochvil, ii. 775. pl. 7:5 74. An order of removal of a man and his wife and their children need not ftate the ages of the children, if the juftices exprefsly adjudge the parith to which they are removed to be the place of their laft legal fettlement, Uffeulm v. Clyftbydon, ii. 777. pl. 723 75. Sed quare; fce Rex v. Trinity in Chefter,. ii. 781. pl. 731 76. An order of justices removing nurfe children to their derivative Jettlements, without taking notice of the death, or adjudging the place to which they are removed to

84. An order of removal must be directed to the officers of the parih from which the paupers are removed, St. George's v. St. Olave's, ii. 750. pl. 729

85. But if it be directed to the officers of both parishes, the addition of the wrong parish is only furplufage, Spalding. St. John Baptift, ii. 764. pl. 685 86. But if the overfeers of A. are to remove, and the overfeers of B. are to receive the pauper, and the order be directed to the officers "of the parishes of A. and B.” ordering them both to remove and receive the pauper, it is bad, Bedwick's cafe, ii. 780. pl. 727

87. So if an order be directed to the conftable only, he may refufe to obey it; but if he removes the pauper under it, the removal is good, Rex v. Wangford, ii. 780. pl. 728 88. If the county be named in the margin of the order, a direction to the officers of the parish, without faying in what county fuch parish lies, is good, if there is fufficient reference to it, Uffculm v. Clift. bydon, ii. 777. pl. 723 89. Therefore where "The borough of Leeds" ftood in the margin of an order of removal, and the direction was, "To the churchwar"dens and overfeers of the town"hip of Holbeck in the faid borough," it was held good; for the margin is to be confidered as a part of the order, Rex v. Township of Holbeck, &c. ii. 781.

VIII.

OF PASSES.

pl. 730

90. For the removal of perfons under agrant paffes See VAGRANTS, ii. 782 to 792

86

IX.

RETURNING

after

REMOVAL.

91. By 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 2. f. 3. pauper returning of his own ac"cord to the parish from whence "he was removed may be punished "as a vagabond," ii. 753. pl. 659 92. By 17. Geo. 2. c. 5. "fuch

"offenders fhall be deemed idle "and diforderly persons, and, on "conviction before one juftice, on "view, or by confeffion, or the "oath of one witness, may be "committed to the houfe of cor"rection for one month," ii. 755. pl. 662

93. An order of removal only prevents the perfons removed from returning in a state of vagrancy; and therefore if fuch perfon, on his return to the parish from whence he was removed, take a tenement of the yearly value of ten pounds, ne cannot be punished on the above ftatutes, Rex v. Fillongley, ii. 795. pl. 742

94. The warrant of commitment of a pauper for returning after removal must be on the ftatute of 17. Geo. 2. c. 5.; and it must purfue the words of the act; and therefore fuch a warrant committing a man to the houfe of correction, "there to remain until "difcharged by due courfe of "law," is bad; for the words of the ftatute are, "there to be kept "to hard labour for any time not "exceeding one month," Baldwin v. Blackmore, ii. 795. pl.

740

95. If on a vagrant fearch a poor man confefs himself fettled in a different parith, and two justices remove him accordingly, and he immediately returns, yet he cannot, on this confeflion of the fact, be committed under 17. Geo. 2. c. 5. for there must be a regular charge made against fuch an offender, and he must be iummoned in order to be heard on that charge, Rex v. Angel, ii. 792. pl. 739 96. But the juftices may, after a con

97.

viction, commit a pauper who returns after an order of remot al, although the order be quathed at feffions, if on certiorari it be af firmed in King's Bench, Rex v. Hall, ii. 792. pl. 738

A conviction on the ftatutes of 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 12. and 17. Geo. 2. c. 5. mull state the parish to which the pauper returned, Rex v. Eleu Cole, ii. 795. pl. 741

X.

ORDERS OF REMOVAL

not

APPEALED AGAINST.

98. An order of removal, if not appealed from to the next feffions, becomes final and conclufive, Malendine v. Hunfdon, ii. 797. pl. 745 99. Same point, Rex v. Hinxworth, ii. 800. pl. 749 100. Same point, Rex v. Silchefter, ii. 797. pl. 746 101. Therefore if a pauper be removed by an order of justices, he cannot be removed to a third parish without appeal, Rex v. Chipping Farringdon, ii. 796. pl. 743 102. So an order of removal to a parith confifting of several townhips is binding on the township to which it is delivered, if not appealed from, Rex v. Kirby Stephen, ii. 799. pl. 748

103. Same point, Spitalfields v. Bromley, ii. 796. pl. 744 104. So an order removing a certificate-perfon is conclufive if unappealed from, Rex v. Ealing, ii. 801. pl. 751

105. So an order removing a wife is, if unappealed from, as conclufive as if the husband himself had been removed with his wife, Rex v. Towcester,

ii. 801. pl. 752

106. And being conclufive that the place to which the pauper is removed is the place of his last legal fettlement, a new fettlement can only be gained by fome act altogether fubfequent to his removal, Rex v. Kenilworth, ii. 805. pl. 754

107. But an order of removal is only

conclufive to thofe who are mentioned in it; fo that if only the father and mother be removed VOL. I.

thereby, the queftion relative to the fettlement of their children is ftill open, Rex v. Southorvram, ii. 804. pl. 753

108. But to render an order conclufive for want of appeal even to the parties mentioned in it, it must be a fubfifting order; for if the order be deferted, it is not binding though unappealed from, Rex v. Llanrhydd, ii. 797. pl. 747

109. So alfo it must be a legal order, or the neglecting to appeal against it will not render it conclusive, Rex

v. Swalcliffe, ii. 801. pl. 750 110. Therefore where a perfon rented and refided upon a tenement of more than ten pounds a-year in the parish of A. but was removed by an order of two juftices to the parish of B. it was held that this order was not conclufive, though unappealed from, Rex v. Fillongley, ii. 805. pl. 755

XI.

REMOVAL

after

APPEAL.

111. On an order of removal being reverfed, two justices of the appellant parish may remove the pauper back to the parish from whence he was fent, Honiton v. South Beverton, ii. 807. pl. 756

112. If an order of removal be con

firmed at feffions, the parish where the pauper is adjudged to be fettled, cannot remove him to a third parish, on a fettlement gained previous to the confirmation of the order, Harrow v. Riflip, ii. 807. pl. 757

113. If an order of removal be reverfed on appeal, and the pauper return to the refpondent parish, they may remove him from thence to a third pari; for an order reverjet

19

is only conclufive on the appellant parifn, St. Michael's Bedingham v. King fton Bowfey, ii. 808. pl. 758

114. If a pauper be removed from the parish of Dale to the parish of Sale, and the parish of Sale neglect to appeal, he cannot, at the distance of four years, be removed from a third parish to the parish of Sale, unless it appear that he had not gained a fettlement in any other parish, Thackham v. Findon, ii. 808

pl. 759

115. If a pauper be removed to one parish he cannot be removed back till after appeal, Chalbury v. Chip ping Farringdon, ii. 809. pl. 760 116. An order of removal reverfed only binds the contending parishes; but an order of removal confirmed is conclufive on all perfons as well as on the parties, Mynton v. Stoney Stratford, ii. 809. pl. 761

117. If an order of removal be confirmed, yet the appellant parish may remove the pauper to any parish in which he gains a fettlement fubfequent to the confirmation of the order, Swanscombe v. Shensfield, ii. 809. pl. 762 118. An order of removal quashed for want of form was held not conclufive between the contending parishes, Rex v. Bishopstallen, ii. 810. pl. 763 119. But fee Mungerhanger v. Warden, ii. 811. pl. 766 120. And Rex v. Leigh, ii. 817. pl. 772 pau

121. If the parish to which the per is removed, instead of appealing fend the pauper back, and the first parijh appeal against the fecond order, the pauper fhall be removed to the fecond parish, Malendine v. Hunfdon, ii. 810. pl. 764 122. If, on appeal, a pauper be fettled in the parish of 4. and is removed from thence by a fubfequent

order, it must appear that he had gained another fettlement, Alderton v. Felingtowe, ii. 810. pl. 765

123. If an order of feffions be dif charged, yet the pauper may be removed from a third parish to the appellant parish; for it is only conclufive as between the then contending parishes, Rex v. Coln St. Aldwin's, ii. 811. pl. 767 124. An original order is not dif charged by the allowance of the appeal, Rex v. Sarratt, ii. 813. pl. 768

125. If a certificate-man be removed before he become chargeable, and the order, on appeal, be reverfed, yet this fhall not conclude the certificated parish from removing him to the certifying parish after he becomes actually chargeable, Rex v. Ofgathorpe, ii. 813. pl. 769 126. If a pauper be removed from

A. to B. and, on appeal, the order be difcharged, yet the parish of A. may remove the pauper to the parifh of B. if he afterward gain a fettlement in that parish, Rex o. Bradenham, ii. 815. pl. 770 127. An order of removal difcharged does not prevent a third parish from fhewing a fettlement in the fame parish gained fubsequent to that which was in queftion when the order was discharged, though prior to the feffions in which the order was discharged, Rex v. Bentley, ii. 816. pl. 771

128. An order of removal quashed is conclufive between the parties, Rex ii. 817. pl. 772

v. Leigh,

who have been employed in the king's fervice fince April 1763, and have not fince deferted, fhall not be removed from any place, where they have set up and actually exercifed trades, to the place of their laft legal fettlement, until they become actually chargeable (See MILITIA-MEN and SOLDIERS), ii. 134 to 142 130. A wife cannot be removed, while refiding on her husband's eftate, upon being only likely to become chargeable, Rev v. Aythorp Rooding, ii. 634. pl. 563

XIII.

APPEAL

against

ORDER OF REMOVAL.

131. For the time and manner of appealing against an order of removal, See APPEAL — SESSIONS, ii. 819 to 869

RIVERS NAVIGABLE.

See TOLLS-POOR-RATE.

RUN-AWAYS.

See RELIEF OF POOR-VAGRANTS.

S.

SALARIES.

1. An officer appointed by the commiffioners of the falt-office for the purpose of fuperintending faltworks carried on in the parish in which fuch officer is a houfe-keeper, and for which he receives a falary of £40 a-year by monthly payments from the government,

fioners at pleasure, is not rateable

to the poor in refpect of fuch