refpondents must first establish their 17. By 7. Jac, 1. c. 5. and 21. Jac. I. c. 12. " an overfeer of the poor, on * trial of an action brought against "him for any thing done in his of "ficial capacity, may give the fpe"cial matter in evidence," i. 282. pl. 310 18. By 3. Will & Mary, c. 11. f. 12. "in all actions brought against churchwardens or overfeers for "mifapplication of the parish mo"ney, the evidence of the pa"rishioners, or any of them, other * than fuch as receive alms, or any penfion, or gift out of fuch momies, fhall be admitted," i. 86 293. pl. 335 19. By 13. & 14. Car. 2. c. 2. f. 20. if any perfon be fued under this "act (refpecting baftard children). fuch perfon may give the fpecial "matter in evidence," i. 385. 27. But evidence of criminal conver fation alone is not fufficient to bas tardize the iffue of a married woman, Rex v. Brown, i. 397. pl. 522 28. On an illue out of chancery to try the legitimacy of the defendant in a caufe, the mother may be examined to prove that the child was not her husband's; but after her death her declarations to this effect are not evidence, Clerk . Wright, i. 397. pl. 523 29. For though the general declarations or the answer of a parent in chancery are good evidence, after the death of fuch parent, to prove that a child was born before marriage, they are not evidence to prove that a child born in wedlock is a bastard, Goodright . Mojs, Corp. 591 30. Mere improbability that the hulband was not the father is not fufficient to bastardize iffue, Lemax v. Holmden, i. 398. pl. 525 31. The reputed father of a bastard 32. And although a married woman 33. And therefore an order of bas- evidence either for or against her hulband, Barker v. Dixie, i. 404. cine, pl. 528 36. The evidence of a parish-register cannot be contradicted by the daybook, May v. May, i. 401. pl. 529 37. No evidence fhall be admitted, on making a second order, to baftardize the children, Rex v. Woodchefter, j. 402. pl. 531 38. An order of baftardy must be made on the vivá voce testimony of witneffes; it cannot be made on affidavit, Rex v. Colbert, ` i. 433. pl. 578 39. An order of feffions reciting that it was made on full hearing, implies that it was made on evidence of the merits, Rex v. Terei. 445. pl 610 40. See alfo Rez v. Lubbenham, ii. 11. pl. 26 41. The birth of a bastard in a pa rish is prima facie evidence that its fettlement is in fuch parish, ii. 15. pl. 30 The feffions may receive parol evidence of an apprenticeship in order to draw a conclufion of the fact whether the binding was by indenture or not, Rex v. Eaft Knoyle, ii. 614. pl. 546 43. For an apprenticefhip can only be proved by the production of the indenture, or by giving evidence that it existed, Rex v. Holbeck, ii. 615. pl. 547 42. 44. Unless an indenture of apprenticefhip be firft proved to be left, the feffions cannot admit parol proof of its contents; and even then the teftimony of the pauper's mother, that she heard her husband fay that the pauper was bound apprentice, and that the indenture, which he never faw, was underfood to have been given to the malter is not fufficient evidence of 1 an apprenticeship for the purpose of gaining a fettlement, although the fact of fervice with the maiter be proved, Rex v. St. Saviour's, i. 463. pl. 648 45. See alfo St. Helen's v. St. Saviour's, ii. 615. pl. 548 46. But where the pauper married at the time of his being a foldier, and in his examination under the mutiny at depofed that he had been put apprentice and had ferved out his time, which fa& was confirmed by his wife on her examination before the feffions, thefe were held fuficient evidence of an appren ticeship, Rex v. St. Michael's Bath, ii. 618. pl. 550 47. Indentures not ftamped pursuant to the 8. Ann. c. 9. f. 32. are void, and cannot be given in evidence, Cuerden v. Leland, i. 483. pl. 679. 48. Same point, Rex v. Llanvari Dyffryn Cluyd, i. 487. pl. 683 49. Same point, Rex v. Ditchingham, i. 622. pl. 860 Rex v. Edgeworth, ii. 59. pl. 80 50. Same point, 51. But indentures regularly ftamped are prima facie good, and therefore may be given in evidence, although the binding is for a lefs time than the itatute 43. Eliz. c. 2. requires, Rex v. St. Nicholas, i. 461. pl. 644 52. An apprentice who has run away from his mafter, and is apprehended and carried before a juftice of the peace under the ftatute of 6. Geo. 3. c. 25. cannot give in evidence, that the indentures were not conformable to the directions of 5. Eliz. c. 4. Rex v. Evered, i. 517. pl. 773 53. If on parol evidence indentures be proved to have been executed, it shall be prefumed that they were duly ftamped, Rex v. Eaft Knyle, i. 485. pl. 680 54. See 54. See Rex v. Middlezoy, ii. 620. pl. 551 55. Sed quære; for it is faid in another cafe, that on parol evidence of the exiflence of indentures, fufficient evidence muft alfo be given for the Court to prefume that they were regularly ftamped and the duty paid, Rex v. Badby, i. 490. pl. 687 56. The master of an apprentice, on " a parol agreement was not made between him and the father of the "apprentice at the time of figning "the indenture, that he the mafter "fhould not pay for the first two years of the time certain monies "per week which were covenanted "in the indenture to be paid to the "mafter? for it tends to make him contradict his own deed, Rex v. Portfea, i. 493. text 57. What fhall be taken to be evidence of the binding of an apprentice to a perfon in the fea-fervice, i. 564. to 572 58. A copy of the parish-register of christenings, and proof of identity of the perion, is fufficient evidence to prove a fettlement by birth, Rex v. Creech St. Michael's, ii. 16. pl. 34 59. The birth of a pauper removed as a married woman is fufficient prima facie evidence of fettlement to oblige the other fide to go on, Rex v. Woodford, ii. 16. pl. 35 60. So the place of birth of a legitimate child is fufficient evidence of the place of fettlement, although evidence be given that the father is ftill alive, and that he ferved two years in a different parifh, unless it be further proved that fuch fervice was under a hiring for a year, Rex v. Whixley, ii. 17. pl. 36 61. The derivative fettlement of a pauper may be proved by other evidence than the father's teftimony, Rex v. Bucklebury, ii. 26. pl. 53. 62. By 26. Geo. 2. c. 33. f. 10. "to fupport a marriage by publi"cation of banns, it is not neceffary to prove that the parties ac"tually dwelt in the parish in "which the banns were published," ii. 68. pl. 92 63. By 26. Geo. 2. c. 33. f. 10. "to fupport a marriage by licence, it "is not neceffary to prove that the "ufual place of abode of one of "the parties for the space of four weeks was in the parish where "the marriage was folemnized," ii. 68. pl. 92 64. 65. By 26. Geo. 2. c. 33. f. 10. nor fhall any evidence in either "of the above cafes be received "to prove the contrary in any suit touching the validity of such "marriage," ii. 68. pl. 92 66 66 By 26. Geo. z. c. 33. f. 15. marriage must be folemnized in "the prefence of two or more wit"neffes befides the minifter who "fhall celebrate the fame; an entry "whereof thall be made in THE "REGISTER, expreffing whether "it was by banns or licence; or, if "both or either of the parties be "under age, with the confent of "parents or guardians; and figned "by the minilter and the two wit "neffes, 66. By 21. Geo. 3. C. 53. f. 3. ii. 70. pl. 97 "the registers of marriages in thote 67. 66 chapels or churches legalized by "this act, or copies thereof, fhall "be received in evidence in the "fame manner as copies of regifters "of marriages under THE MARAn order removing a man and RIAGE-ACT," ii. 73. pl. 104 woman as bufband and wife is, if unappealed from, conclufive evidence of the fact of marriage as between the two parishes, Rex v. Berkefwell ii. 74. pl. 107 68. Same 72. As by the viva voce teftimony 83. See alfo Rex v. Hedfor, ii. 117. of witneffes who were prefent, ibid. ii. 78. pl. 112 73. So alfo cohabitation as man and wife for thirty years is fuch prefumptive proof of marriage as will intitle the children of the parties to the fettlement of their parents under it, Rex v. Stockland, ii. 78. pl. 113 74. The proof of a marriage in fact is not neceflary for the purpote of gaining a fettlement; proof by cohabitation, reputation, and other circumftances from which a marriage may be inferred, is fufficient, Morris v. Miller, ii. 80. pl. 116 75. And if the regifter be deftroyed, and the parfon and clerk dead, the evidence even of a perfon who was only prefent at the marriage-dinner may be fufficient, ibid. ii. 81. notis 76. On the removal of a woman to her fuppofed hufband's fettlement, it may be proved either by the man himself, or by his real wife, that he was not married to the woman re moved, Henley v. Chejbam, i. 81. pl. 118 77. The removal of a wife is prima facie evidence that the place to which he is removed is the place of her husband's fettlement, Rex v. Irenaton, ii. 103. pl. 137 78. So on the removal of a wife to the place of her laft fettlement, fuch place fhall be intended the fettlement of the hufband, Rex v. Higher Walton, ii. 103. pl. 138 pl. 145 84. The fettlement which a widow has gained in her own right cannot be changed by evidence that the was afterwards married to a man who in his life-time told her that he was born in Yorkshire; for this is no evidence of a derivative fettlement from her husband, Rex v. Henfingham, ii. 114. pl. 143 85. In examining the legality of a fettlement by renting a tenement, the value fhall be taken according to the rent, if no other évidence of value appear, Kniveton v. Tiffington, ii. 193. pl. 220 85. To prove a fettlement by hiring and fervice, there must be evidence given of a contract either exprefs or implied, Gregory Stoke . Pitminster, ii. 326. pl. 325 87. Same point, Rex v. Wejhill, ii. 328, pl. 327 88. Same point, Rex v. ton, Thames Ditii. 330. pl. 328 89. Same point, Rex v. Guildford, ii. 332. pl. 329 go. Same point, Rex v. Ipfwich, ii. 333. pl. 350 91. When a general hiring is proved, it fhall be taken to be prima facie evidence of a hiring for a year, Rex v. Wincaunton, ii. 339. pl. 332 92. Evidence of a pauper's having lived in the capacity of an oftler, and of his having faid that he was fettled 95. But fee Rex v. St. Michael's Bath, ii. 618. pl. 550 96. And Rex v. St. Saviour's, ii. 615. pl. 548 97. Parol evidence may be given of a certificate, Rex v. St. Maurice, ii. 617. pl. 549 98. A deed coming out of the hands of the oppofite party, after notice to produce it, muit, prima facie, be taken to be duly executed, and must be received in evidence without proof of the execution, Rex v. Middle zoy, ii. 6zo. pl. 551 99. In fettlement by eftate, if it appear by the deed of conveyance that the confideration-money paid was only £28, yet parol evidence may be given to thew that the real confideration was £.30, Rex v. Scammonden, ii 673. pl. 591 100. By 3. Geo. 2. c. 29. f. 8. “ a parih certificate allowed and "witneffed in the manner defcribed "by the act fhall be taken and al"lowed in all courts as evidence, without other proof," ii. 700. pl. 615 101. A certificate above thirty years old fhall be received in evidence, although the allowance is not cer tified, as directed by 3. Geo. 2. c. 29. Rex v. Farringdon, ii. 708. pl. 626 102. A certificate granted by fome of the parish-officers of a parifh, confifting of feveral hamlets, and having feparate overfeers, although they therein defcribe themselves as officers of the parish at large, may be explained by evidence that they were only the officers of the hamlet in which the pauper was fettled, Rex. Samborn, ii. 712. pl. 628 103. A parifh, to discharge itself from a certificate, muft give evidence of fome fact which by law difcharges the certificate; for the Court will not prefume a difcharge from other Facts, Rex v. Warblington, ii. 744. pl. 656 104. An order of removal stating that it was made on due proof is fufficient, i. 765. notis 105. The juftices of one county cannot make an order of removal upon evidence tranfmitted to them by the justices of another county, although they verify the truth of fuch evidence on oath, Rex v. Cola St. Aldwins; ii. 768. pl. 700 106. The testimony of the father to prove the derivative fettlement of his children may be difpenfed with, Rex v. Bucklebury, ii. 770. pl. 703 107. 24. If the family of a pauper can be removed on the evidence of the father, taken by two juftices in the prefence of each other, if he die or become infane before removal, Rex v. Erifwell, ii. 771. pl. 704 108. A juftice cannot commit a pauper for returning after removal, on his own confefion that he belongs to another parish, Rex v. Angel, ii. ·792. pl. 739 109. The juftices of the feffions are fole judges of the truth of the evidence, and of the credibility of the witnesses, as well as of the law; and therefore |