"where there are no churchwardens, to be attefted refpectively by two or more credible witneffes, thereby owning and acknowledging the perfon or * perfons mentioned in the faid "CERTIFICATE to be inhabitants

legally fettled in that parish, township, or place, every fuch CERTIFICATE, having been al"lowed of and fubfcribed by two "or more justices of the peace "within the parish or place from whence any fuch CERTIFICATE "fhall come, fhall oblige the faid parish or place to receive and provide for the perfon mentioned in the faid CERTIFICATE, to"gether with his or her family, "as inhabitants of that parish,

whenever he fhe or they shall "happen to become chargeable to, "or be forced to afk relief of

6.

"fuch apprentice or fervant fhall "have his fettlement in fuch pa"rish, as if he had not been bound "apprentice or ferved as a hired "fervant with fuch certificated "perfon," ii. 700. pl. 6.4

By 3. Geo. 2. c. 29. f. 8. "the

"witneffes who atteft the execution "of fuch CERTIFICATES by the "parifh-officers figning and feal"ing the fame, or one of them, "fhall make oath before the juf"tices who allow the fame, that "he faw the parish-officers fign and "feal the certificate, and that the "names of the witneffes attesting

the fame are of their own proper "hand-writing; and the faid juf"tices fhall alfo certify that fuch "oath was made before them; " and then fuch certificate fhall "be taken to be fully proved, and "thall be evidence without further

proof, &c." ii. 700. pl. 615

7. By 3. Geo. 2. c. 29. "the over"feers or other perfons removing "back any certificated perfons fhall "be reimbursed fuch reasonable Icharges as they may have been put to in maintaining and remo"ving fuch perfons, by the parish

officers of the parish or place to "which they are removed, the faid "charges being first ascertained "by a juftice of the peace of the

county or place to which fuch "removal shall be made, to be le"vied by diftrefs, &c." . 701. pl. 616.

he wishes to be certificated, yet the Court will not iue a mandamus to the parish-othicers to grant it, Rex v. St. Ives, ii. 703. pl. 619

9. And even if a perfon to whom they have granted a certificate lofe it, they are not obliged, on this ground, to grant another, Rex v. Hayden, ii. 707. pl. 624

10. Nor are the juices obliged minierially to allow and fign a certificate granted by the parih-of£cers, for they have a difcretion to allow er to difallow it, it it be liable to objection, Rex v. Wootton St. Lawrence, ii. 704. pl. 621 1. The juices of peace may not only allow a certificate, but may allo arteft it, Rix v. Polen, i. 702. pl. 617

13. And a certificate which appears to have beengok allowed in L be prefomed to have been really angel, Burlye ft. m. Celivering ii. 702. pl. 618

13. And fhall not be rendered invalid becaufe it is around; as, “To

the churchwa,deas and overfoers of the poor of the parish of Harwich near Dover Court in the county of Effex, or to any or either of thein," &c. ii. 703.

pl. ozo 11. If one of the two prifons attet. ing a certificate make his mark, the fict of his having ned is futlieerily attefied by the juices certitying that the ather witnefs fwore that he was prefent and faw the execution of it, Rex v. Ahton Keymes, ii. 705. pl. 622 15. When a certificate is above thirty years old, an allowance written in the margin and figned by two juftices is fallicient, although there is ro cestincate of the affidavit of one of the atteflag witnesses, pursuant to 3. Geo. 3. c. 2). Rex v. Farii. 708. pl. 620

16. But unless a certificate be figned by the majority of the parish-officers, though properly allowed and attefted by two juftices, yet it is not binding, Rex v. Tamworth, ii. 706. pl. 623

17. And therefore where a certificate was figned by only one churchwarden and one overfeer, when at the time of granting it there were four churchwardens and two overfeers of the parih, it was held vai', Rex.v. Margam, ii, 703. pl. 625 18. The certificate also must be figned by the churchwarden and overisers of the township, parith, or place granting it; and therefore a certificate granted by fome of the rarith-omcers of a parish confiling of feveral hamlets, and having fe parate overfeers, although they therein defcribe themfelves as ficers of the parith at large, may be explained by evidence, that they were only oficers of the hamier in which the pauper was fettled, Rex v. Samborn, ii. 712. pl. 628 19. The words of a certicate promiting to receive back the person certificated when requfled,” mean when legally requested, viz. by an oner of two juftices when fuch perfon becomes actually chargeable, Rev. St. Mary We Westport, ii. 7:1. pl. 627

21. But the mere delivery of a certificate will not give it an effe& different from that which it was originally intended to have; and therefore, when the parish of Menwith granted a certificate to the parith of Reade, and the pauper, after a refidence there for many years, got back the certificate, and went with it to another parish in the fame township, and delivered it to the parifh-officers there, it was held, that this laft parish was Rot bound by the delivery of the certificate, Rex v. Bishopfide, ii.

718. pl. 638

22. It derives its effect however from its delivery; and therefore a certificate of a prior date, though not 'delivered till after the removal of the pauper, is conclufive upon the removal by the parish granting it, Rex v. Buckingham, ii. 7 26. pl. 644 23. But the delivery of a certificate fhall not have the effect of vacating a fettlement previously gained in the certificated parish, Rex . Findern, ii. 740. pl. 653 24. If a certificate be properly delivered, the certificated perfons cannot be removed until they become actually chargeable, Little Kire v. Woodfull, ii. 714. pl. 630

25. And if a certificated family be ill, and receive relief from a parishioner, the perfons fhall not, on account of fuch relief, be faid to have become chargeable, although the parishioner be afterwards reimburfed by the parifh-officers, Rex v. King frwood, ii. 721. pl. 640

26. And it is only the individuals of a certihcated family who ajh relief, against whom the certificate is in force; and therefore the whole family cannot be removed where only part of it becomes chargeable, Rex

. Framlingham, ii. 725. pl. 643 . 27. But a certificated perfon mut have become actually chargeable

before removal; for the ftrongeft probability that they will become chargeable is no caufe of removal, Rex v. St. Mary Westport, ii. 737. pl. 646

28. Before the certificate, act of 8. & 9. Will. 3. c. 30. a certificate was eonfidered merely as a private agreement between the two parishes: and therefore if a man was fent to a parish in which he was last legally fettled, the certificate.did not bind the certifying parith; for a mere private agreement is not fuffered to alter the law, Harrifon v. Lewis, ii. 713pl. 629

29. But now the parish certifying is bound by the certificate; for fince the ftatute it is confidered as a folemn acknowledgment like the conufance of a fine, and eflops from faying that the perfons certificated are fettled in any other parih, Honiton v. St. Mary Axe, ii. 714. pl. 631

30.

And it concludes the parish giving it as to all the facts therein mentioned, New Windfor v. White Waltham, ii. 714. pl. 63z

31. Therefore if parifh-officers give a Certificate ΤΟ a man and woman as husband and wife, they cannot afterwards controvert the fact of their marriage, Rex v. Headcern,

ii. 716. pl. 635

eured at the defire of the parish where the parties refide, provided it is not fraudulent, Rex v. Toftock, ii. 724. pl. 642 34. It was formerly held, that a cer. tificate was binding on the parish certifying against all other parishes whatever, Honiton v. St. Mary Axe, ii. 714. pl. 631 35. But it is now held, that a cer. tificate only binds the certifying parish as to that parish to which it is directed, and leaves it, as

to all other parishes, as they were before the certificate-act was made, All Saints v. St. Giles, (2. Salk. 530.) ii. 714. notis 36. A certificated perfon therefore may gain a fettlement in a third parish, and thereby avoid the certificate, Rex v. Pelham, ii. 715. pl. 633 37. Same point, Rex v. Horley, ii. 720. pl. 639 38. So alfo if he gain a fettlement in the certificated parish, by either of the two ways pointed out by the 9. & 10. Will. 3. c. 11. Rex v. Sherbourne, ii. 715. pl. 634 19. But although it is now fettled, that a certificate is only conclufive upon the parish granting it, with refpect to that parish to which it is granted, yet it is primâ facie evidence as to other parishes, Rex v. Lubbenham, ii. 730. pl 647 40. And if an order remove a certificated perfon from a third parith to the certificated parish, and fuch parith neglect to appeal against the order, it is conclufive, and prevents them from returning the pauper to the certifying parish, Rex v. Ealing, ii. 727. pl. 645 41. Not only the perfons mentioned in the certificate, but all legitimate children born while it continues in force, are virtually included therein, Rex v. Sherbourne, ii. 715. pl.

634

42. Therefore where the fon of a certificated perfon, born after the certificate granted, when he had attained twenty years of age, was hired for a year and ferved for a year in the certificated parish, yet being virtually included in the certificate, he does not gain a fettlement by fuch hiring and fervice, Rex v. Bray, ii. 717. pl. 636

43. Same point, Buckingham v. Maidt Moreton, ii. 717. notis

44. So alfo if a fon born under a certificate is emancipated from his father's family, and then the father gains a fettlement in avoidance of the certificate, yet if the fon be come chargeable, he shall be fent to the parish from whence his father came by certificate, Rex Bugden, ii. 718. pl. 637 45. A certificate, however, only includes the certificated man, his wife, and those children who live with him; but does not extend to grand-children, Rex v. Inhabitants of Darlington, ii. 882. pl. 858

IV.

THE

Continuance and Determination

OF CERTIFICATES.

46. A certificate is difcharged by the certificated perfon becoming chargeable, and being removed back to the certifying parish, Rex v. Sudbury, ii. 733. pl. 648 47. So alfo a certificate is discharged by an order of removal from a third parish to the certifying parish, Rex v. Birdham, ii. 741. pl. 654 48. A certificate is alfo difcharged by the certificated perfon's abandoning the certificate, by voluntarily leav ing the parish to which he was certified, Rex v. Newington, . 748. ii. pl. 657 49. Same