c. 2. in making may make fuch 386. Rex v. Kempfon, Mich. Term, 7. Geo. 2. MSS.-At The authority of a general quarter-feffion of the peace holden at Stafford on the feffions, by the 3d Aril 1732, upon the appeal of the churchwardens the 43. Eliss. and overfeers of the poor of the parish of Gofnal, in the orders of maincounty of Stafford, an order was made against James Kemp- tenance for poor fon the elder, for the maintenance of his fon's wife. This relations is original; but they order was removed into the court of king's bench by certiorari.—MR. ABNEY contended, that as the feffions have by order on the ap the 43.4 . Eliz. c. 2. an original jurisdiction to make fuch or- peal of overseers, der, it must have been made there, and cannot come to them against the relation of the poor by way of APPEAL, as in this cafe; and for this irregu larity the order is a mere nullity.-MR. PARKER, conira. This order of feffions was not made upon an appeal against an order, but on an appeal against Samuel Kempfon. LORD HARDWICKE, Chief Justice. It is not faid to be an appeal from an order; it is a loose way of applying to the Court; but it will not vitiate the order. III. The form of the order of maintenance. perfon. Salk. 474.476. 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 be poor, or likeA JEW, whofe only daughter embraced Chriftianity; where- ly to become upon he turned her out of his house, and refufed her the chargeable.) leaft maintenance. Upon which, on complaint to the juftices at the general quarter-feffions, they, reciting that fhe 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 fhillings per month, under the penalty of twelve pounds; and this order they founded on the 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7.-And now it was quafhed, becaufe the juftices have not jurifdiction to make fuch an s. C. poft. pl. (a) Sed vide order, it not being within the ftatute; because it was not 401. and the alledged that he was poor, or likely to become charge- ft. 1. Ann.c.30 able to the parish (a). ante, pl. 380, 388. Jenkins's Cafe, Eafter Term, 5. Ann. 2. Salk. 534. To pay till the -An order of feffions was made, that the defendant Court shall fhould pay two fhillings weekly towards the fupport of order the conhis father, till that court fhould order to the contrary; order. trary, is a good which was held good, because it was indefinite and no fet time limited and if an estate should fall to the pauper, application might be made to the juftices; otherwise if a time was limited. 389. Rex v. Hallifax, Hilary Term, 12. Ann. Poor's Sett. An order on a pl. 52.—An order of fethons was made for the father-in-father-in-law t daughter in-law muft ftate that he is of fufficient ability.-S. P. decided in the fame Term in the cafe of Rex. Dunn. maintain his. law REX V. HAL LIFAX. Perfons to be re 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 ftated in the order, that the father-in-law was of fufficient ability. -PARKER, Juftice. This order muft be quafhed. Every body is fuppofed prima facie to be of ability to maintain himself and family, but no farther. Suppofe this woman had had three hufbands, who fhall contribute then? SIR THOMAS POWis faid, the laft husband's father. 390. Rex v. Tripping, Trinity, 4. Geo. 1. Viner, 424.— relieved must be Juftices at the quarter-feffions, upon complaint of the adjudgedcharge-overfeers that Tripping had left his wife, and that the was able to the pa- become poor and impotent, and chargeable to the parish, rith. The order muft #tate that the nable to work. and that R. T.her father-in-law, was of fufficient 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 he was chargeable; and it was held, that an adjudication that the perfon is become chargeable is as neceflary in an order of the quarter-feffions as in an order of justices. 391. Rex v. Gulley, Eafter, 1. Geo. 1. Foley, 47.-MR. GLIDE moved to quafh an order of feffions. The order pour perfon was fets out, that one Mary Gulley was in a poor deftitute 'condition, and that her father was able to maintain her, and therefore they make an order upon him to allow her 2s. 6d. a-week till further order. FIRST OBJECTION. The time was uncertain how long the father fhall pay this.-Sed non allocatur. SECOND OBJECTION, It did not appear that he was lame, blind, or unable to work; fo that though fhe was in à deftitute condition, it might be because the would not work.-Upon this exception the Court quafhed the order of feffions. the pauper is impotent. Must be an ad- 392. Rex v. Lition, Eafter Term, 5. Geo. 1. Sett. Poor, judication that 111.-Upon complaint that A. was deferted and impotent, the juftices adjudged and award the father to pay her fo much per week. It was objected, that there was no adjudication that he was impotent, only in the complaining part of the order; and the order was quafhed. An order of maintenance 393. Rex v. Pennoyr, Mich. Term, 13. Gea. 1. MSS.Two orders of feffions were made upon the defendant for auft be pofitive, maintaining and relieving Mary, his daughter-in-law.MR. VERNEY took an exception to the framing of these ortion; it muft obferve the words of the ftatute, and ftate how long the maintenance is to continue. not by way of recommenda ders. ders. FIRST, The ftatute directs under what circumstances Rx v. PENalone a perfon can be entitled to this kind of relief, and NOYR, exprefsly fays, that the perfon must be "poor, old, blind, "lame, or impotent; and that the perfon ordered to relieve "be able, and living in the fame county." These facts, therefore, ought to have been stated in the adjudging part of the order, and to be fet 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 alfo ill, becaufe it appoints the defendant to pay 2s. 6d. a-week, without faying for what time it shall continue; which is uncertain, and therefore void.-A rule was granted to fhew caufe; and in Hilary Term, no cause being fhewn, both the orders were quashed. maintenance fions. 394. Rex v. Woodford, Eafter, 20. Geo. 2. MSS.- An order of Order ftates, that the pauper is not able to get her whole muft fhew 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 feffions jurifdiction; for the act requires in the jurifdicthat the fhould be impotent, and accordingly enumerates tion of the feffeveral fpecies of impotency; but the prefent pauper does not come within the defcription of any of them. A fecond objection was, That it does not appear that the grandmother lived in the fame county.-THE COURT took no notice of the first objection, but faid, the firft order does not ftate that the perfons on whom, &c. lived within their jurisdiction; and it is a general rule, that where an act Set. & Rem. page 99. of parliament gives a jurifdiction, the juftices ought to See the cafe of fhew the perfons to be within the jurifdiction which they Rex. Ruth, have exercised over him; and though the fecond order (that is, of feffions) recites that they were then living within their jurifdiction (being prefent in Court) yet that will not help the firft, if it be infufficient: We cannot determine the points of law, unless the order comes properly before us; and it is impoffible to confirm the firft order by connecting it with the fecond, when that first appears bad in form. IV. What relations are chargeable. 395. Rex v. Reve, Mich. Term, 7. Car. 1. 2. Bulft. 344. The reputed The defendant was committed by warrant of a juftice grandfather of a of the peace for the county of Middlefex, becaufe he being poor orphan ordered to maintain it; for the maintenance of a bastard is not within 43. Eliz. c. 2. the child cannot be RE. REV. the reputed grandfather of one Benjamin Gregory, an or phan child, maintained at the charge of the parish of St. Giles, and a man of fufficient ability, had refused to maintain and provide for the faid child, or to find fureties for his appearance at the next quarter-feffions for the county of Middlefex. On being brought to the bar on a babeas corpus, it was objected, that the law knows of no fuch character as a reputed grandfather, for that a baftard is filius populi, and the reputed father marked out by 18. Eliz. c. 3.-JONES and CROKE, Juftices. It is very reasonable that he fhould contribute to the maintenance of this child, he being a man of good fufficiency. But there appearing another objection to the warrant, ou which the prifoner was difcharged, 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 baftard, it is clearly CROKE Juices, not within the 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7. LOCKE and in the cafe of the City of Weftminster v. Gerrard, Hilary Term, 1621. 2. Bulit. 346. If a grandmo ther, being of fufficient ability, is ordered to maintain a marries, her liable to the maintenance. 396. Draper v. Glenfield, Michaelmas Term, 7. Car. 1. 2. Bulft. 345.-At the last summer affizes for the county of Leicefter, before HUTTON and CROKE, Justices of affize, this matter came in queftion concerning the town poor grandchild, of Glenfield, where, upon the ftatute 43. Eliz. c. 2. f. 7. and afterwards the grandmother being a perfon of fufficient ability, had a husband fhall be poor grandchild relieved by the faid parith, and the grandmother married with the plaintiff Draper. The question was, Whether Draper thould be taken to be a grandfather within the meaning of the ftatute, and fo liable to give maintenance to the child, he having married the grandmother, who was before a perfon of good ability?—IT WAS RESOLVED there by them, that he fhould not be accounted a grandfather within the ftatute, 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 hufband is not a grandfather, neither within the words nor yet within the meaning of the statute for the purpose of being charged in this cafe.-But CROKE, Juftice, 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 fhe was then of ability, it is then good reafon that the hufband should be charged, but not otherwife. A husband who man liable to 397. The City of Westminster v. Gerrard, Michaelmas marries a wo Vacation, 7. Car. I. 2. Bulft. 346.-On a complaint being made against one Edward Gerrard, who had married the relation, ard grandmother who ought to have contributed towards the receives an eftate with her in marriage, fhall be liable in respect of the estate, maintain a poor main CITY of WESTMIN STER . GER maintenance of her grandchild, as a grandmother within the meaning of the 43. Eliz. c. 2. I. 7. the matter was referred to the decifion of WHITLOCKE and CROKE, RARD. Juftices; and they were of opinion, that if fuch a hufband had an eftate in marriage with the grandmother, he fhall, in refpect of this eftate, be charged, and is bound to contribute towards the relief and maintenance of the grandchild; but not if he had not any eftate nor advancement by his marriage with her (a). 398. Gerrard's Cafe, Hilary Term, 7. Car. 1. 2. Bulft. 347. The husband -This question was removed into the court of king's of a grandbench, where the facts of the cafe were agreed to be as mother, altho he is of ability by the care and tain her grand follow: Edward Gerrard had married one Ann Seabroke, the grandmother of A. S. fhe being a poor widow, industry of his with whom he had no means nor any advancement at all; wife, is not Gerrard the bufband had also but very small means: but bound to main they having been married for the fpace of eighteen or child, unl.fs the nineteen years, by the induftry of the hufband, and good was a woman of housewifery of the wife, Gerrard was now become a man fufficient ability of ability. The question, upon the ftatute of 43. Eliz, at the time of c. 2. was, Whether he being the grandfather-in-law, by the intermar riage; and fha'l having married the grandmother, who had no means at the even then only time of the marriage, fhall be by law bound to maintain be charged dur the grandchild of his wife?-CROKE, Juftice. Clearly ing the life of not. It is clear, that the grandmother or the grandfather, his wife. having means, fhall be bound to keep the child, but if S. C. Foley, 43. they have no means, then they fhall not: alfo, if the grandmother hath no means, and the afterwards marries with one that hath means, he fhall not here be charged with keeping of the child. But if the hufband hath fufficient means with the grandmother in marriage, then he fhall be charged with the keeping of the child during the life of the grandmother, his wife; for if the wife dies, the hufband fhall not be charged after her death: alfo, if land defcend and come to fuch a grandmother after her marriage, and the hufband hath this in her right, the husband shall be bound to keep the child. In the prefent cafe, the grandmother, at the time of the marriage, had nothing, and therefore cannot be charged with the keeping the child: alfo, if the husband after marriage comes to be of ability, he fhall not be charged. The reafon why the husband shall be charged to keep the child when (4) HOLT, Chief Justice, in the case of Rex v. Barney, Comb. 405. faid, that in Gerrard's Cafe, who married the grandmother of a poor perfon, although the died, and fo the relation was determined, yet the ftatute was he |