difburfed, but does not fay by whom.-PER CURIAM. It is neceffarily intended, by the churchwardens. and fo much 586. Reg. v. Odam, Mich. 12. Ann. Salk. 124.-An To pay " nine order of baftardy was made for the defendant to pay nine pounds in grofs, pounds in grofs immediately upon fight of the order, weekly," is and after that fo much weekly and it was held good; for by the ftatute the juftices are to make order for relief of the parish, and keeping of the child, by payment of money weekly, or other fuftentation, and this might be only indemnifying the parish for money laid out before the reputed father could be found. 1. Vent. 121. name of the baftard. 587. Rex v. England, Hilary Term, 8. Geo. Strange, 503. The order muft -Two orders of baftardy were returned; one made by ftace the fex or two juftices, and an original order made at the feffions: and both were quashed; the first, because the sex of the child or its name were not mentioned in it; and the order of feffions was quafhed, because there being an order of two juftices before, the feffions had no jurifdiction but upon appeal. 588. Rex v. Godfrey, EasterTerm, 10. Geo. Lord Raymond, The order muft 1363.-An order made upon the defendant to maintain adjudge in a baftard child was quafhed, because, though in the com- what parith plaint it was alledged that the child was born in the parish of Hitchin in Hertfordshire, yet there was no ad- S. C. 1. Seff. judication by the juftices, nor any words of the juftices Set. and Rem from whence it could be collected in what parifh the 36. child was born, Caf. 292. Stra. 437. 1. Bar. K. B. 326. child as 589. Rex v. Mitford, Mich. Term, 10. Geo. 1. Cafes An order deSett. 150.-Motion to quash an order of baftardy, be- fcribing the caufe not faid the child was chargeable to the parish, chargeable to but to an hamlet.-PER CURIAM. If it was an hamlet an bamlet, is that maintained its own poor, it had been good; but this bad. not appearing, it was quashed. See pl. 164. 590. Rex v. Street, Mich. Term. 1. Geo. 2. 2. Str. 788.- An order of An order of baftardy was made to pay fo much weekly till maintenance the child was nine years old, if it fhould fo long live: and till the child is nine years old, allowed to be a good order, because it cannot be intended is good. able to provide for itfeif fooner. 591. Rex v. Childers, Eafter Term, 3. Geo. 2. 1. Bar. An order reK. B. 326.-On a rule to fhew cause why an order of two quiring the father to pay fo juftices for the maintenance of a bastard child, and an or- much to the parish, is not a sufficient adjudication that the child was born in such parish. Ff2 der REX v. CHILDERS. The justices, in an order of baf tardy, muft exprefly ad. judge that fuch child was born in the parish. The reputed der of feffions confirming the fame, fhould not be quailed, it was objected, that it was not directly adjudged that the child was born in the parish (of Staplehurst), and yet the order requires the defendant to pay the fum of 45s. to the churchwardens of that parifh to reimburse them. It was answered, that it doth fufficiently appear in the order that the child was born there; for it adjudges, that the defendant fhould pay this fum for the charges which "the parish of Staplehurst" were at upon account of the woman's lying-in there. But THE COURT faid, that they could not allow of inferences to give the juftices jurifdiction; and accordingly quafhed both the orders. 592. Rex v. Churchwardens of Hexham, Hilary, 5. Geo. 2. MSS.-Two juftices made an order on the defendants, that they fhould maintain a baftard child until the mother fhould be able to provide for it. The mother not being able to keep it, the father not being known, and the child being likely to perifh, DRAPER moved to quafh this order, becaufe it did not appear on oath, that the child was born in the parish of Hexham; neither had the juftices made any adjudication of it in the order. The order was quafhed at the end of the Term, no caufe being fhewn. 593. Rex v. Willey, Mich. Term, 8. Geo. 2. MSS.-An father cannot be order upon defendant, adjudging him to be the father of ordered to pay a baftard child begotten on the body of Ann Parry, rea grofs fum at a future day for quired the mother to maintain the child till feven years the purpofe of old, and ordered the defendant to pay one fhilling per binding the child out ap prentice. (a) Salk. 124. Ante, pl. 586. week during that time, and at the end of the term to pay to the overfeers of the poor of Bruckall in the county of Somerset (where the child was chargcable) the fum of three See Comb. 448. pounds to bind the child apprentice. PER CURIAM. The juftices have authority to order the father to pay a grofs fum for the expence of the woman lying-in (a); for this is for the immediate indemnity of the parish. But it has been often determined, that they cannot direct a sum of money to be paid at a future day for what, perhaps, may never be neceflary; and if the order were good in all other The birth muft points, yet it must be quaihed quoad this. BUT the order be adjudged to fet forth, that complaint was made that the child was born be within the within the parifh of Bruckall, and the juftices adjudged that parish to which the child had become chargeable there: an objection was made, that they have not adjudged that the child was born within the parish.-PER CURIAM. The order is bad in toto for this fault. The birth is the foundation of the jurifdiction, and this must be directly adjudged: the relief is ordered. complaint complaint might be falfe; and for what appears, the child might be chargeable to the parish only as a foundling not born there. We cannot take orders by intendment, If juftices exercife a jurifdiction, they muft fhew themfelves intitled to it. REX V. WILLEY. 1 ef of the go 594. Rex v. Howlett, Eafter, 13. Gro. 2. MSS.-Order To pay for reedjudging Howlett the father of a baftard child, and or- vernors, &c. dering him to maintain it for the relief of the governor bad. "and guardian for the poor of Colchester:" and for not S. C. 2. Seff. faying "for the relief of the poor," it was quafhed. Caf. 195. S.C.. Will. 18.35. 595. Rex v. Gravefend, Eafter Term, 15. Geo. 2. MSS. The justices -Two exceptions were taken to an order of two juf- may order the tices concerning a baftard. FIRST, That it is no other payment of a fum in grofs. wife affirmed that the child was born at Gravefend than 1. Sid. 326. by a "Whereas," which is recital only (a).-SECONDLY, 1. Salk. 124. That the reputed father is ordered to pay a fum in grofs SC Comyns, for maintenance and other incident charges.-PER CU- 97. RIAM. The whole order is the words of the juftices, (a) Sed vide and in this cafe a fufficient adjudication of the fact. As post. p. 440. to the other objection, if it had been for maintenance only, it would have been too general; but as it is for incident charges too, it is good, and like the cafe of Reg. (b) Ante, v. Odkam (b). pl. 586. was baptized in expended for maintenance of 596. Rex v. Moravia, Eafter Term, 15. Geo. 2. MSS. Adjudication Two exceptions were taken to an order of baftardy. FIRST, that the child It recited, that the child was baptized in the parish, and the parish, and did not adjudge that it was born there. SECONDLY, The that 361. be paid, juftices adjudge thirty-fix pounds to be paid, part whereof part where of had already been paid for the maintenance of the child had been already and other incident charges and expences. But thofe exceptions were over-ruled: for, PER CURIAM, the provi- the child and fion of the ftatute of 18. Eliz. c. 3. is, that care fhall be other incident taken to relieve the parish where the child was born, and charges, held for that purpose the justices are to make provifion ac- good. cording to their difcretion; therefore it is neceffary that it should appear in what parifh the child was born, their jurifdictions arifing from thence: and further, they are to charge the reputed father or mother for the maintenance of the child; and as the order fays fhe was delivered of a child baptized in the parifh, that by a reasonable conftruction may be taken to be the place of the birth of the child and as to its being a recital, that is fufficient; for in orders of removal it is, "Whereas upon complaint." and that is looked upon as affirming a fact done; fo * whereas fuch a child was baptized in fuch a parish," is fuf Ff3 MORAVIA. (a) Sed vide Rex. Pitts, infra, pl. 598. The juftices cannot order a baftard child to be delivered to the care of ils mother. An order of to us, &c." a fufficient affirmation of the fact (a). As to the thirty-fix pounds for maintenance and other incident charges, thefe words "other incident charges" must be incident to the maintenance; and the rather, as a part thereof is already paid.-WRIGHT, Justice, faid, that at firft he was of a different opinion, and thought the words "incident charges" extremely general; but on looking into it, he found there were orders as general as this is.-The order was confirmed. 597. Rex v. Felton and Wenman, Eafter, 31. Geo. 2. MSS, On motion for an information against defendants for taking away a baftard child from its mother, and delivering it to the father, a man of fortune-LORD MANSFIELD faid: Neither the putative father nor mother had the legal right of guardianthip; and if the putative father, having an order of baftardy made on him to contribute to the maintenance of the child, has a mind to take the child and provide for it, the parish cannot infift on his paying towards the maintenance while in his cuftody; and that he thought in this cafe, where the juftices had ordered the child to be delivered to the mother, he (the juftice) had done wrong, the father being in good circumftances, and the mother poor; ani that the circumftances of the parents fhould direct in these cases. 598. Rex v. Pitts, Eafter Term, 21, Geo. 3. Dougl. 662.baftardy, ftat. On Friday the 4th of May BEARCROFT obtained a rule to ing, "Whereas fhew caufe why an order of baftardy inade upon the defenit hath appeared dant by two juftices for the county of Hereford, and conwithout an ex- firmed by the court of quarter feffions for that county, prefs adjudi- fhould not be quashed. The objections he then ftated cation that the were, FIRST, 1 hat, in the caption, the two juftices were perfon charged faid to be" refiding near unto the limits of the parish of, is the putative." and the words of the ftatute are," in or next unto father, is void. "the limits, &c." SECONDLY, That the order contained no exprefs adjudication, and was therefore void, ac(6) 2. Sid. 363. cording to the cafe of Rex v. Perkaffe (b). On Saturday Ante, pl. 574. the 19th of May BowER fhewed caufe. Upon examining the original order, it appeared that the word in the caption was "next" and not "near;" and there remained, therefore, only the fecond objection to be confidered. The order was, in a great meafure, in the fame form with the precedent in Burn's Justice (c), but with the omiffion of the following claufe: "We therefore, upon examination of the caufe and circumftances of the pre"mifes, as well upon the oath of the faid A. B. as other"wife, do hereby adjudge him the faid C. D. to be the re"puted (c) 1. Burn. 189. 66 REX V. PITIS. 3. Burn, 475. and Burr. "puted father of the said baftard child."-BOWER contended, that as the ftatute of Elizabeth does not prescribe any particular form, if enough appear on the face of the order to authorize the act of the juftices in charging the fuppofed father, that is fufficient. The cafe in Siderfin is not fo decifive as it would feem to be from the manner in which it is ftated by Burn (a); for it appears, (a). 1. Burn, in Siderfin, that the objection on which the order was 193. quathed was, that the fum was unreasonably fmall (viz. 2d. per week); and this point about the adjudication is mentioned after the decifion; and then, without any pofitive opinion of the Court upon it. The fame principle muft govern with regard to orders of bastardy and orders of removal, and none of the determinations upon orders of removal will be found to warrant the prefent objection. In Rex v. Westwood (b), there was nothing (6) 1. Stra. 73. in the order to fupply the want of an exprefs adjudication. The fame obfervation applies to Rex v. Minchinhampton (c); for it was not at all stated there, that the (6) 2. Seff. pauper was likely to become chargeable. In Stallinburgh Caf. 92. . Haxhay (d) the words only were, "we do believe in Waltham Magna v. Waltham Parva (c), as we are Settl. Caf. "credibly informed;" and in Berry v. Arundel (f), p. 316. "Whereas complaint hath been made to us." In the prefent (d) 3. Burn, "In cafe the juftices have exprefsly faid, "Whereas it hath 475. "appeared to us, &c." and in Suddlecomb v. Burwash (g) 1. Seff. LORD HOLT faid, that was fufficient; and the fame Caf. 131. thing was afterwards determined in a cafe of Reg. v. Dar- (e) 3. Burn, nal (b), mentioned in the Report of Suddlecomb v. Bur- loc. cit. wash.-BEARCROFT, on the other fide, infifted, that the (f) 1. Salk. adjudication is the most important and an indifpenfable 479. part of the order, and cannot be fupplied by implication. (g) 1. Salk, It is true, the Court is not fo ftrict with regard to orders 491. of justices, as in the cafe of convictions; but still, it (6) Easter, muft appear upon the order, that the juftices had an au-2. Ann. thority for what they did; and without an adjudication they have no authority. They act both as jury and judges, and the order muft contain both a verdict and judgment. In indictments founded on the common law, nothing can be fupplied by inference; and à fortiori, nothing fo material as the adjudication can be intended in the cafe of particular jurifdictions created by ftatute. If defects of this fort could be cured by intendment, no ⚫ order would ever have been held to be bad. The Court will pay regard to precedents long established, and approved; and this order, though framed after the precedent in Burn, has left out the most effential part. In Ff4 Rex |