Volume IX. 1847. The QUEEN V. ants of WIDECOMBE "I have had by my said wife seven children, all born in lawful wedlock: six of them are now living; and five of the said children were, prior to my apprehension, The Inhabit with me and my wife in the parish of Plympton St. Mary aforesaid, and under our charge, and now conIN THE MOOR. tinue there under her charge, viz. Susanna Barnett, aged 16 years, not emancipated; Hester, aged" &c. (similar statements as to the other four): "I resided in the parish of Plympton St. Mary almost ever since our said marriage until the month of September last, when I was committed to the Devon county gaol, and where I have been ever since, and still remain in custody there." The appellants, submitting that the present case could not come within the statute of 59 G. 3. c. 12. s. 28., and that at all events further proof was necessary on the part of the respondents to make it so, contended that the said examination was not admissible as evidence on the hearing of this appeal. The sessions held that it was admissible, but granted a case on that point. The settlement in Widecombe having been put in evidence in support of the order of removal, the appellants then proved that a former order, dated 17th September 1844, for the removal of the same paupers on the same settlement, was quashed by the sessions in January 1845; the order made by the Court at the time, as entered in the minute book of the clerk of the peace, and put in evidence at this trial, being as follows. "This Court, on the motion of the respondents, and with the consent of the appellants, doth quash the said order, on the ground that the examinations upon which the said order of removal was made are insufficient to support the same: and the said order of removal is Queen's Bench. hereby quashed accordingly." Upon this the appellants contended that the former order, having been thus quashed, was in fact quashed on the merits, and that the present order, consequently, could not be supported. In answer to this the respondents tendered parol evidence to explain the entry in the minute book, and to shew that it did not contain the true judgment of the sessions, the chairman, in giving judgment, having used the additional words "and not on the merits." The appellants objected to the admissibility of evidence for this purpose: the sessions, however, having received it, held, upon the additional evidence, that the former order was not conclusive, it having been quashed for insufficiency of examinations and not on the merits, if the Court were at liberty to receive any evidence to explain the minutes of the Court: but granted a case on this point also. A birth settlement in Widecombe having been also set up by the respondents in the examinations, the appellants then, relying on their grounds of appeal which follow, proposed to prove that R. Barnett was not born in Widecombe, but in the parish of Lidford, in Devon.” Grounds of appeal. 2. This ground of appeal stated the quashing of the before mentioned order of September 17th, 1844, and averred that the order of sessions quashing that order of removal related directly to the settlement of Mary Barnett and her said five children, being the same settlement now in question, and was conclusive between the parties to the present appeal, no later settlement being shewn by the examination. 3. Removal, under an order of two justices in 1822, 1847. The QUEEN v. The Inhabit- ants of IN THE MOOR, of William and Susanna, the parents of Richard Barnett, from the parish of Lidford to the parish of Wendron in Cornwall; which order was unappealed against, and thereby William the father became settled in Wendron; and consequently Richard and his family became and were, at the date of the order now appealed against, legally settled in Wendron, the said Richard having acquired no settlement in his own right. 4. Removal of Susanna the mother of Richard, in 1830, by order of two justices, from the parish of Sheeps tor, in Devon, to the said parish of Wendron; which order was unappealed against; and thereby Susanna became settled &c. (conclusion as in the preceding ground of appeal). 5. Acknowledgments of Susanna as a settled inha bitant by the parish officers of Wendron, between 1830 and the present time; whereby &c. (Conclusion as in the two preceding grounds) (a). 7. Because the said Mary Barnett, the wife of the said R. Barnett, and Susanna &c., their children, 66 were not, nor was any or either of them, at the time of making the said order of removal against which we appeal, settled in our said parish of Widecombe in the Moor in any manner whatever." The sessions held that the appellants were not entitled, under these grounds of appeal, to go into this question, but granted a case on this point also, finding as a fact, if such evidence were admissible, that Richard Barnett was not born in Widecombe. The questions for the consideration of this Court (a) The following ground of appeal was not stated in the case, but was referred to in argument. 6. That Richard Barnett did not acquire a settlement in Widecombe by hiring and service with Thomas Chaffe, and by inhabitancy in the said parish, in manner and form as set forth in the examination. 1847. The QUEEN ants of WIDECOMBE IN THE MOOR. were: "1. Was parol evidence legally admissible to Queen's Bench. explain the entry in the minute book? If it was not, then the present order of Sessions is to be quashed. 2. If it was admissible, then was the examination of The InhabitR. Barnett admissible? If that examination was admissible, the order of Sessions is to be confirmed. If that examination was not admissible, then was the evidence tendered by the appellants to disprove the birth settlement in Widecombe admissible? If it was, then the order of Sessions is to be quashed." Merivale and Cornish, in support of the order of Sessions. On the first point, Rex v. Wick St. Lawrence (a) clearly shews that, if the judgment of the sessions in September, 1844, quashing the order of removal then in question, may be deemed general, evidence was admissible to explain it by shewing that the adjudication was not on the merits. But the order is not less open to explanation because the sessions, in quashing the order, have added, as the ground, "that the examinations 66 are insufficient to support the same.' They may have been so by reason of an informality; such as a defect in the captions. [Patteson J. That would hardly be described as insufficiency in the examinations. The expression seems rather to imply that they did not contain sufficient evidence.] Regina v. St. Mary, Lambeth (b), may be cited on the other side; but there the former orders of sessions expressly purported to quash "on the ground of the examination" disclosing no settlement on the face thereof." And in Regina v. Ellel (c), which may likewise be referred (b) 7 Q. B. 587. (a) 5 B. & Ad. 526. (c) 7 Q. B. 593. VOL. IX. N. S. 3 N Volume IX. 1847. The QUEEN V. The Inhabit ants of WIDECOMBE IN THE MOOR. to, the case set forth the circumstances under which the It must Rowe, contrà. First, the minute book of the Sessions is considered as the record of their order; Regina v. Yeoveley (c) and evidence cannot be received to vary the statement contained in it. The entry is not general it is definite and the effect of the evidence was, not to explain, but to vary it by words supposed to have fallen from the chairman. [Wightman J. The question stated (a) 7 A. & E. 492. 496. (c) 8 A. & E. 806. (b) 2 Q. B. 488. 497, 498. |