« PreviousContinue »
386. Rex v. Kempson, Mich. Term, 7. Geo. 2. MSS.-At The authority of a general quarter-session of the peace holden at Stafford on the feffions, by
the 43. Eliz, the 3d A ril 1732, upon the appeal of the churchwardens
C. 2. in making and overseers of the poor of the parish of Gosnal, in the orders of maincounty of Stafford, an order was made against James Kempa tenance for poor fon the elder, for the inaintenance of his son's wife. This relations is oriorder was removed into the court of king's bench by certio-sinal; but they rari.—MR. ABNEY contended, that as the sessions have by order on the ap. the 43. Eliz. c. 2. an original jurisdi&tion to make such or- peal of over seers, der, it must have been made there, and cannot come to them against the relaby way of APPEAL, as in this case; and for this irregu.
person. larity the order is a mere nullity.—MR. PARKER, conira, This order of sessions was not made upon an appeal
Salk. 474.476. against an order, but on an appeal against Samuel Kempfor. LORD HARDWICKE, Chief Justice. It is not said to be an appeal from an order ; it is a loose way of applying to the Court; but it will not vitiate the order.
rion of the poor
III. The form of the order of maintenance. 387. St. Andrew's Undershaft v. Jacob Mendes de Breta, Thepauper muft Mich. 13. Will. 3. Ld. Raym. 699.-The defendant was be adjudged to A Jew, whose only daughter embraced Christianity; where- ly to become
be poor, or like upon he turned her out of his house, and refused her the chargeable.)
cable, least maintenance. Upon which, on complaint to the justices at the general quarter-feffions, they, reciting that The was the daughter of the defendant, and that he was able to maintain her, made an order upon him (he being very rich) to allow her twenty thillings per month, under the penalty of twelve pounds; and this order they founded on the 43. Eliz. c. 2. 1.7.-And now it was quashed, because the justices have not jurisdiction to make such an s. C. poft. pl.
(a) Sed vide order, it not being within the statute ; because it was not 401. and the alledged that she was poor, or likely to become charge- 1. 1. Ann.c.za. able to the parish (a).
ante, pl. 380. 388. Jenkins's Cafe, Easter Term, 5. Ann, 2. Salk. 534. To pay till the - An order of sellions was made, that the defendant Court thall Thould pay two shillings weekly towards the support of order the conhis father, till that court should order to the contrary ;
trary, is a good
order, which was held good, because it was indefinite and no set time limited: and if an estate should fall to the pauper, application might be made to the justices; otherwise if á time was limited.
389. Rex v. Hallifax, Hilary Term, 12. Ann. Poor's Sett. An order on a pl. 52.-An order of feffions was made for the father-in-falber-in-law it
maintain his daug bler. in-law must state that he is of sufficient ability. --S.P. decided in the same Term in the case of Rexy, Dunn,
Rex v. Hal• law to pay fo much a-week to his poor daughter-in-law.
This order being removed into the court of king's bench, Sir Peter KING objected, that it is not stated in the order, that the father-in-law was of fufficient ability, - PARKER, Justice. This order must be quaihed. Every body is supposed prima facie to be of ability to maintain himself and fainily, but no farther. Suppose this woman had had three husbands, who shall contribute then? SIR THOMAS Powis faid, the last husband's father.
Persons to be re- 390. Rex v. Tripping, Trinity, 4. Geo. 1. Viner, 424.relieved must be Jultices at the quarter-feffions, upon complaint of the adjudgedcharge- overseers that Tripping had left his wife, and that she was able to the pa- become poor and impotent, and chargeable to the parish, rich,
and that R. T. her father-in-law, was of sufficient ability; upon its being proved that R.T, was of ability to relieve her, ordered him to pay, &c. a-week. This order was quashed for want of an adjudication that she was chargeable; and it was held, that an adjudication that the person is become chargeable is as necessary in an order of the
quarter-fessions as in an ordeş of justices. The order mult 391. Rexv, Gulley, Easter, 1. Geo. 1. Foley, 47.-MR. Hate that the Glide moved to quash an order of fefsions. The order pour person was sets out, that one Mary Gulley was in a poor deftitute waable to work.
condition, and that her father was able to maintain her, and therefore they make an order upon him to allow her 25. 6d. a-week till further order. "FIRST OBJECTION. The time was uncertain how long the father shall pay this. Sed non allocatur. SECOND OBJECTION, It did not appear that she was lame, blind, or unable to work; fo that though she was in a deftitute condition, it might be because the would not work.-Upon this exception the Court quashed the order of feffions.
Mutt be an ad- 392. Rex v. Lition, Easter Term, 5. Gco. 1. Sett. Poor, judication that 111. Upon complaint that A. was deserted and impothe pauper is
tent, the justices adjudged and award the father to pay impotent.
her fo much per week. It was objected, that there was no adjudication that she was impotent, only in the complaining part of the order ; and the order was quashed.
An order of 393. Rex v. Pennoyr, Mich. Term, 13. Gea, 1. MSS. maintenance
Two orders of sessions were made upon the defendant for r.just be pofitive, maintaining and'relieving Mary, his daughter-in-law.not by way of recommenda
MR. VERNE took an exception to the framing of these orzion; it must observe the words of the statute, and state how long the maintenance is to continue,
ders. First, The statute directs under what circumstances Rux v. PENalone a person can be entitled to this kind of relief, and expressly favs, that the person must be “poor, old, blind, " lame, or impotent; and that the person ordered to relieve “ be able, and living in the same county." These facts, therefore, ought to have been stated in the adjudging part of the order, and to be set out by way of recital. SECONDLY, One of the orders is by way of recommendation to the defendant to relieve the pauper, and is indeed on that account no order at all. THIRDLY, The other order is also ill, because it appoints the defendant to pay 2s.6d. a-week, without saying for what time it shall continue ; which is uncertain, and therefore void.--A rule was granted to shew cause; and in Hilary Term, no cause being shewn, both the orders were quashed. 394. Rex v. Woodford, Easter, 20. Geo. 2. MSS. An order of
maintenance Order states, that the pauper is not able to get her whole
must new that livelihood, and orders her grandmother to pay, &c. Ob- the perfon jection, that by this order the pauper does not appear an charged is withobject of the sessions jurisdiètion ; for the act requires in the jurisdicthat she should be impotent, and accordingly enumerates tion of the fer
lions. several species of impotency; but the present pauper does not come within the description of any of them. A second objection was, That it does not appear that the grandmother lived in the same county.--THE COURT took no notice of the first objection, but said, the first order does not ftate that the persons on whom, &c. lived within their jurisdiction ; and it is a general rule, that where an act of parliament gives a jurisdiction, the justices ought to See the case of thew the persons to be within the jurisdiction which they Rex u. Ruth, have exercised over him; and though the second order (that is, of sessions) recites that they were then living within their jurisdiction (being present in Court) yet that will not help the first, if it be insufficient: We cannot determine the points of law, unless the order comes properly before us; and it is impossible to confirm the firft order by connecting it with the second, when that first appears bad in form.
Set, & Rem. page 99
IV. IVhat relations are chargeable.
395. Rex v. Reve, Mich. Term, 7. Car. I. 2. Bulst. 344. The reputed -The defendant was committed by warrant of a justice grandfather of a of the peace for the county of Middlesex, because he being poor orphan
child cannot be ordered to maintain it ; for the maintenance of a bastard is not within 43. Ediz.c.2.
Rex v, Rive. the reputed grandfather of one Benjamin Gregory, an ota
phan child, maintained at the charge of the parish of St. Giles, and a man of sufficient ability, had refused to maintain and provide for the said child, or to find sureties for his appearance at the next quarter-fefsions for the county of Middlesex. On being brought to the bar on a babeas corpus, it was objected, that the law knows of no such character as a reputed grandfather, for that a baftard is filius populi, and the reputed father marked out by 18. Elizi c. 3. -Jones and Croke, Justices. It is very reasonable that he should contribute to the maintenance of this child, he being a man of good sufficiency. - But there appearing another objection to the warrant, on which the prisoner was discharged, the Court gave no
opinion on this point: and it was afterwards decided (a), (•) By WHIT- that if the child to be relieved be a bastard, it is clearly Croke Juices, not within the 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7. in the case of ine City of Westminster v. Gerrard, Hilary Term, 1621. 2. Bulit. 346. If a granimo- 396. Draper v. Glenfield, Michaelmas Term, 7. Car. 1. aber, being of
2. Bulst. 345:- At the last summer atrizes for the county lity, is ordered of Leicefter, before Hutton and Croke, Justices of ajto maintain a fize, this matter came in question concerning the town poor grandchild, of Glenfield, where, upon the statute 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7. and afterwards the grandmother being a person of fufficient ability, had a marries, her Husband thall be poor grandchild relieved by the faid parith, and the grandliable to the
mother married with the plaintiff Draper. The question maintenance, was, Whether Draper 1hould be taken to be a grandfather
within the meaning of the statute, and so liable to give maintenance to the child, he having married the grandmother, who was before a person of good ability ?-IT WAS RESOLVED there by them, that he should not be accounted a grandfother within the statute, for that the wife, after her marriage, hath no ability at all, the husband having all given unto him by the law by his intermarriage with her; and the husband is not a grandfather, neither within the words nor yet within the meaning of the statute for the purpose of being charged in this case. But CROKE, Justice, faid, it is either reasonable to charge him or not, upon this difference, where the grandmother with whom he intermarried was of good ability, and where not, at the time of the marriage; if he was then of ability, it is then good reafon that the husband should be charged, but not otherwise,
A luband who 397. The City of Ireliminster v. Gerrard, Michaelmas marries a wo. Vacation, 7. Car. 1. 2. Buljt. 346.-On a complaint being man liable to
inade against one Edward Gerrard, who had married the maintain a
a poor relation, and grandmother who ought to have contributed towards the receives an efate with her in marriage, Mall be liable in respect of the estate,
maintenance of her grandchild, as a grandmother within
City of the meaning of the 43. Eliz. c. 2. 1. 7. the matter was
WESTMIN. referred to the decision of WHITLOCKE and CROKE,
STER W. GR.
ХААР, Justices; and they were of opinion, that if such a hurband had an estate in marriage with the grandmother, he shall, in respect of this estate, be charged, and is bound to contribute towards the relief and maintenance of the grandchild; but not if he had not any estate nor advancement by his marriage with her (a).
398. Gerrard's Case, Hilary Term, 7. Car. 1. 2. Bulfi. 347. The husband -This question was removed into the court of king's of a grand. bench, where the facts of the case were agreed to be as
he is of ability follow: Edward Gerrard had married one Ann Sea
by the care and broke, the grandmother of A. S. The being a poor widow, indufry of his with whom he had no means nor any advancement at all; wife, is not Gerrard the husband had also but very small means : but bound to mainthey having been married for the face of eighteen or child, unk ss she nineteen years, by the industry of the husband, and good was a woman of housewifery of the wife, Gerrard was now become a man sufficient ability of ability. The question, upon the statute of 43. Eliz. at the time of €. 2. was, Whether he being the grandfuther-in-law, by the intermarhaving married the grandmother, who had no means at the even then only time of the inarriage, shall be by law bound to maintain be charged durthe grandchild of his wife? - CROKE, Justice. Clearly in the life of not. It is clear, that the grandmother or the grandfather, his wife. having means, shall be bound to keep the child, but if s. C. Foky, 43. they have no means, then they shall not: also, if the grandmother hath no means, and the afterwards marries with one that hath means, he shall not here be charged with keeping of the child. But if the husband hath fufficient means with the grandmother in marriage, then he shall be charged with the keeping of the child during the life of the grandmother, his wife ; for if the wife dies, the husband shall not be charged after her death : also, if land descend and come to such a grandmother after her marriage, and the husband hath this in her right, the husband shall be bound to keep the child. In the present case, the grandmother, at the time of the marriage, had nothing, and therefore cannot be charged with the keeping the child: also, if the husband after marriage comes to be of ability, he shall not be charged. The reason why the husband shall be charged to kecp the child when
(a) Holt, Clief Iuftice, in the case was determined, yet the statute was of Rex v. Barney, Comb. 405. faid, conftrued by cquity that he was a that in Gerrard's Case, who married grandfather within the statute. See the grandmother of a poor person, also Walton v. Spark, Comb. 321. although the died, and so the relation