So, that here, even a misdirection was not considered a void direction. Again, where a certificate directed to the churchwardens, &c. of the parish of Holy Trinity, or any other parish in the city and county of Coventry, was delivered to the parish officers of Saint John Baptist, where the pauper resided, it was considered altogether unnecessary to the validity of a certificate, that it should be directed to the parish to which it might happen to be delivered; and the case of St. Nicholas, Harwich, was relied on as decisive of the point. (a) So, where the parish of M. sent one I. with a certificate to the parish of R., who after a residence for some years in R. got back the certificate, and went with it to another parish in the same township, where he had purchased a freehold, and delivered it to the parish officers there, it was holden, that it could not affect any other parishes than M. and R.; and, besides, that the person in question had a right to reside upon his freehold. So that his apprentice was adjudged to have been illegally removed from his master's place of abode. (b) The only apparent contradiction to the doctrine just advanced, is to be found in some expressions of Lord Kenyon, which he himself afterwards qualified and explained. In one case, he said, that a certificate must be directed to one parish in particular (c), and in another, that there must be a particular parish in contemplation at the time of granting Harwich and Woolverstone, in Suffolk. Burr. S. C. 171. S. C. But see as to this latter point many authorities contra in a subsequent part of the chapter. (a) 1 East, 438. Rex v. Lillington. (b) 2 Bott. 579. Rex v. Bishopside. Burr. S. C. 381. S.C. Sayer, 231. S C. (c) 6 T. R. 553. the certificate. (a) Yet, the learned Chief Justice declared in a subsequent case, that the only dictum to the contrary was a loose expression of his own, in Rex v. Wymondham, which the principal question in the case did not call for. True, however, it was, that the certificate could not be considered a transferrible instrument, for it then would operate as a licence for vagrancy, and so far a particular parish is intended by the officers. (b) the certifi cate to the officers. The statute of William is express, that the certificated Delivery of person shall at the same time bring and deliver it to the churchwardens, &c. of the place where such person shall parish come to inhabit; although, therefore, it be regularly signed, attested, and allowed, it will be of no force unless duly delivered. (c) As, where one having a legal settlement at Wensley, was bound apprentice to a master at Chesterfield, the master was told he must procure a certificate or he would be removed, which he did, but never delivered it. Some time afterwards the pauper left his master, and then the certificate was delivered, but not before the master had obtained a settlement, and his apprentice under him, if the certificate were of no avail. The Court held the instrument inoperative for want of due delivery, and quashed the sessions' orders. (d) So, where there was a residence for one month in A., on a tenement of 10l. a year, and then the parish of B. granted a certificate to A., it was held that the settlement in A. could not be thus defeated, although, at the time of granting it, the residence of forty days had not (a) 4 T. R. 255. (b) 1 East, 440. (c) 2 Bott. 561. Rex v. St. Nicholas. expired. (a) For, wherever the master might gain a settlement by such a default, the apprentice also stands under like favourable circumstances. (b) Nevertheless, as in a case where there had been a servitude for twentytwo days, if the master receive and deliver a certificate within the forty days, another disability attaches, for the service of forty days is indispensable to the acquiring of a settlement. (c) Yet the parish granting the instrument, will be estopped from setting up any settlement gained in another parish previous to the grant, though not subsequently. (d) By the friendly society act, 33 G. 3. c. 54. s. 17., no member of the society who shall come to inhabit in any parish, and shall deliver to the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of such parish a certificate, &c. shall be removeable till actually chargeable. But it has been held, that in such a case the certificate must be delivered, or a settlement may be gained; for it is the duty of parish officers to be watchful of the interests of their places. And so, where evidence was given of the due concoction of a certificate, but none whatever of its having been duly delivered, the Court held, that an apprentice of such certificated friendly member had acquired a settlement. (c) (a) 2 Bott. 582. Rex v. Findern. (b) Burr. S. C. 161. Rex v. Clisthydon. (c) Burr. S. C. 470. Rex v. Westbury. 2 Bott. 434. SECT. II. To what Persons a Certificate may be granted, and to whom it will extend. persons THE parishes of St. Peter and St. Paul, Bath, had To what purchased some land, and built a poorhouse thereon; generally. after which they removed the pauper with others to it, at the same time certificating them, as the house stood in another parish. On the removal of these persons from their abode, which removal was confirmed by the sessions, the Court was very clear, that the certificate acts authorize the whole body of poor, of whatever denomination, and with whatever object, to remove into another parish, provided they have the protection of a certificate. (a) Some doubt, however, was once expressed upon this subject by Mr. Just. Foster, in a case wherein a lunatic. had been specially certificated into an hospital for cure, although the case was not determined upon that ground. The learned Judge rather considered the certificate-acts, as looking to persons who came out of one parish into another to get their livelihood by their work and labour. (b) branches of A certificate only protects three classes of persons; To what those who are named in it; those who are part of the family of the certificated person when it is granted; and a family. (a) Caldec. 213. Rex v. St. Peters and St. Pauls, Bath. 4 Burn, 567. (6) Burr. S. C. 286. I. Persons expressly named. his children born in the certificated parish after that time. (a) By 12 Ann. c. 18. s. 2., apprentices and hired servants belonging to certificated persons are precluded from gaining a settlement by virtue of such apprenticeships or services, and are referred to their original places of settlement. It has been customary to name the head of the family expressly in the certificate, and sometimes to insert the names of his children in like manner. But much litigation and subtle distinctions have arisen on the question of a particular mention of such children, and the mere generalizing of them in a writing of this kind. It has been determined, however, without conflicting authority, that the children of a son, not so named, are without the protection of the certificate, and such grandchildren may therefore acquire a settlement in the certificated parish. (b) So, where the son of a certificated man married, and lived in a house of his own in the certificated parish, not being expressly named, it was holden, on one occasion, that he might gain a settlement (c), and on another that his apprentice might gain a settlemeut by serving him. (d) Again, it has never been doubted, but that a child, even though named, but continuing in the (a) 7 T. R. 137. per Grose J. (ỏ) 4 T. R. 797. Rex v. Darlington, and see 3 T. R. 44. Rex v. St. Mary Westport. 2 East, 277. (c) 5 T. R. 583. Rex v. Heath. 1 Wils. 183. Rex v. Bug den. Burr. S. C. 270. S. C. (d) 6 East, 397. Rex v. Mortlake. 1 M. & S. 669. Rex v. Thwaites. 2 M. & S. 417. Rex v. Morley. |