settled in W. The court were of opinion that he followed his father's settlement acquired by residence on the tenement devised to him by the grandfather J. B.: “For the legislature evidently meant [in 8 & 9 W. III. c.30. and 9&10 W. III. c.11.] that the certificate should be entire to protect the pater familias and the family whether named or not; and this naming of any of the family is a mere matter of convenience, the more easily to identify them, but is not directed to be done by the legislature, nor are any powers taken away from or given to such children on account of their being named or not named in the certificate. It is mere artificial reasoning which makes a distinction between such of the children as are and such as are not named in the certificate; a distinction which the act itself does not make." (1) "The language of Lord Mansfield is founded in reason, and not opposed by the act, that the children of all parents must have the settlement of their father until they acquire another for themselves, and that therefore the pauper in this case continuing part of the father's family at the time, derived the settlement from him, and was not repelled from it by the circumstance of being named in the certificate." (2) If such were not the true construction of the act, the inconvenience would follow, that however young the children might be coming with their father into the parish with a certificate naming them, if the father gained a new settlement there, he would be settled in one parish and the children in another. (3)

(1) Verba Lord Ellenborough C. J. Yet quare whether the expressly naming persons in a certificate, who would otherwise be included under the general denomination of family, may not have been intended in many instances to save the trouble of granting other certificates, and extend its protection to such children after they cease to be part of their father's family, without affecting their condition while they continue members of it; as for instance, in case of the father's death, or the certificates being abandoned by him. See the opinion of Le Blanc J., 16 East, 124. Also, Rex v. Idle, 2 B. & A. 149.

(2) Eod. Jud. Ibid.

(3) Per Bayley J., Ibid. Rex v. Leek Wooton, 16 East, 118.

7. When by emancipation.

Not determin

ed by his death

to whom originally granted.

7th, It is discharged as to those who reside under the general description of part of the family, by their ceasing to be so from becoming emancipated. (1) Although personally referred to in the certificate under the general terms of "the child born or to be born.” (2)

The pauper's father resided in A. under a certificate from M., but the pauper was not named in the certificate. When about twelve years old, his father being dead and he residing with his mother in A. under the certificate, he was bound apprentice by the overseers of M. to one L. of M. until twenty-one. After serving L. seven years in M. he returned with his master's consent to serve one G. in A., where his mother and family resided under the certificate. He continued to serve G. there until twentyone, and never returned to his mother's house as part of her family, but immediately hired himself for a year and served a year with G. in the parish of A., and so continued in the service for four years successively with the same master. He thereby gained a settlement in A. For when a child not named in the certificate separates himself from his father's family at an age when he is by law capable of supporting himself, he shall neither derive a settlement subsequently acquired by his father, or be prevented by the certificate from gaining one for himself. Whatever divests a child of the capacity to gain a settlement as one of his father's family, divests him of the incapacity to acquire one for himself. (3)

But a certificate is not determined in all cases as to those who have resided as members of the family, by the death of the person to whom it was originally granted. A man and his wife came into a parish, under a certifi

(1) Rex v. Darlington, ante, 174. (2). Rex v. Bugden, Burr. S. C. 270. ante, Vol. I. Rex v. Heath, ante, 181. (4). Rex v. Hampton, ante, 156. (3). Rex v. Mortlake, 6 East, 397.

(2) Rex v. Thwaites, 1 M. & S. 669.; and see the distinction between this and the cases, n. (1); and Rex v. Sowerby, ante, 179.

(3) Rex v. Morley, 2 M. & S. 417.

cate; the woman dying, the husband married again, and the second wife was held to reside under its protection after her husband's death. (1) A pauper born in the parish, where his father resided under a certificate, was put out apprentice there; his father died six months before. the expiration of his apprenticeship, yet the certificate was not considered as determined by the death, so as to enable the apprentice to acquire a settlement, for he came into the parish, and resided under its protection. (2)

If a certificate is discharged by any of these means, all who reside under it, whether as natural parts of the family, as apprentices, or as servants, are restored to their capacity of acquiring settlements in the parish as if it never had existed.

It is necessary for those who wish to get rid of a cer- Must show it tificate, to show some matter in discharge of it. As if discharged. they rely upon a subsequent settlement by estate, under a voluntary grant, the onus probandi is on them, that the grant is voluntary; it does not lie on the other side to prove it a grant, for a valuable consideration: whoever wants to set aside that which has once existed, must show something which destroys it. (3)

But where the pauper's grandfather came into S. under a certificate in 1727, and the pauper was relieved by S. while resident in other parishes; he was considered as settled there, although no other evidence was given of his father or grandfather having gained a settlement since the certificate. For there was ample time for the father's being emancipated as well as the pauper, and there was no reason why S. should have relieved the pauper while residing in other parishes, if they had not known that he was settled with them. (4)

(1) Rex v. Hampton, ante, 174. (7), 179.(1), Buller J. dissent. (2) Rex v. Alfreton, 7 Term Rep. 471.; and see Rex v. Keel, ante, 185. (1).

(3) Per Ashhurst and Buller J., Rex v. Warblington, 1 Term Rep. 241. (4) Rex v. Stanley cum Wrenthorpe, East, 52 Geo.III. 15 East, 380.

Presumed discharged after

seventy years, by relief.

3 Geo. II. c. 29.

PART II. SECT. VI.

Of reimbursing the certificated Parish.

As persons coming into a parish with a certificate are enabled to reside there without being removed until actually chargeable, it was reasonable that the parish thus compelled to receive the probable poor of other places, should be exonerated from the burthens incident to such residence as soon as they became unable to support themselves. This has been provided for by 3 Geo.II. c.29. s.9., which enacts that "When any overseer or other person shall remove back any person or their families, residing under a certificate, and becoming chargeable to the parish or place to which they shall belong; such overseers or other person shall be reimbursed such reasonable charges as they may have been put unto in maintaining and removing such persons, by the churchwardens or overseers of the place to which such persons are removed; the said charges being first ascertained and allowed by one or more justices for the county or place to which such removal shall be made; which said charges so ascertained and allowed shall in case of a refusal of payment, be levied by distress and sale of the goods of the churchwardens and overseers of the place to which such certificate person is removed by warrant of such justice or justices."

PART II. SECT. VII.

Of proving a Certificate. (1)

ON a question of settlement, when the respondents produced a certificate more than thirty years old, purporting to be granted to their parish by the appellant parish, the

(1) See ante, part ii. sect.ii. p. 171. as to the operation of 3 Geo.II. c. 29., &c. Also as to the signing of certificates in addition to the cases, ibid. 165, et seq. 1 & 2 Geo.IV. c.32. and Rex v. Catesby, the cases respecting the signing parish's indentures, ante, Vol. I. chap.xxi. s.2.

mere production of it was held to be sufficient, and the respondents were not obliged to show that the certificate had been kept in the parish chest (1); and it would be sufficient, if the certificate were produced by a rated inhabitant who was overseer of the township producing it (2), and even an interested corporator may produce the corporation muniments of which he is the depositary; and if the party objecting wished to inquire as to the custody, he might. (3)

book.

But when the respondent parish D., in order to prove the Entry in parish fact of a certificate being delivered to D., after proving that no such certificate could be found in the custody of D., produced a book from the parish chest. On the outside of the cover was "Certificates received. Bonds ditto. Copies of Orders 1756." This book contained memorandums of orders of removal, of bonds and certificates received. The certificates were regularly numbered, and under the title Certificate was the following entry, dated 1771: No. 88. J. P. from Kenton; No. 89. J. D. (4) from ditto. There were a variety of other certificates subsequently entered. The Court were of opinion, that this book was properly rejected by the sessions, as inadmissible in evidence. For it is an established principle, that nothing said or done by a person having at the time an interest in the subject matter, shall be evidence, either for him or persons claiming under him. Now the entry in this book is of that description; for it is made by a person having an interest to make it, inasmuch as it is produced as proof of the delivery of a certificate, by which the parish of which the party making the entry is an inhabitant, is to be relieved from the burthen of maintaining the individual named in the certificate. (5)

(1) Rex v. Ryton, 5 Term Rep. 289. 1 Phillips on Evid. 6 edit. 464. (2) Rex v. Netherthong, 2M.& S. 357.

(3) Per Lord Ellenborough, ibid., citing the opinion of Lord Kenyon C. J. (4) The pauper's father.

(5) Rex v. Debenham, 2 B. & A. 185. There being other circumstances in the case from which the sessions might draw the conclusion that the certificate was in fact delivered, it was sent back to be reheard on that point.