truded into the Pariih. But it was anfwered, That the Order fays he is
likely to become chargeable; and how can he be fo unlefs he was ac-
tually in the Pariih ? Per Parker, The Party being poor, is likely to
become chargeable, and lb is he likely to come into the Pariih, he en-
deavouring lo to do as the Order fays; the Words do not import that he
is actually come into the Pariih. And Per Cur. The Order was qualh'd.
Poor's Settlements n. pi. 16. Pafch. 1713. B. R. TheQueen v. the In-
habitants of GrulFam.
(S) Orders of Settlement or Removal. Good or not, in
R efpect. of the Jttfliccs by 'whom made, and How.
2 Shaw's t. A N Order was to remove a Poor Man from the Parifh of W. to C.
Pradt. Juft. Jf\ if* the Comity of Derby, which was confirm' d But the firft Or*
22. cites fa r Vas now qnajh'd, becaufe it did \noi\ appear to be made by two jujlices
Nel(f7uft~~ if the Peace; it is only, Whereas Complaint hath been made to us; and
550. cites lb they did not recite their Authority in the Order. It is true, they
S. C â– were mentioned to be Jujlices upon the Appeal, but that will not help ; for
S. P. Juft. tne y m ight be fo then, and not at the Alaking of the firft Order; and
Cafe Law fo _ this Reafon it was qu . lH y d> - M od. 322. Mich. 8 W. 3. B.R. Wal-
'' ton Pariih v. Chelterfield Pariih.
Poor's Set- 2. An Order was made by two Jultices to remove a poor Perfon, and
tlements27o. Exception was taken, that it did not appear by the Order that the Jujlices
iM^Sjp were of the * Divifion, or that either of them was of the Quorum: The Jail
2 Salk. 4S0.' was held a good Exception, but the firft over-rul'd ; tor in that the Sta-
Trin. 9 W. tute is directory. 2 Salk. 473. Mich. 8 W. 3. B. R. Anon.
5. B. K.
Elizabeth 3lfl;ltp's Cafe, That in this the Statute is only Directory, and not Reftri&ive or Qualifica-
tory. 12 Mod. 138. The King v. Aftilcy, S. C accordingly; for there may be no Jultices or
the Divifion. Divifion is not known in our Law, but only of Counties into Hundreds ; and hy that
ExprefTion in that Statute is meant to go to the next Juftice. — 2 Shaw's Pracf. Juft. 2;. cites S. C â–
S. P. Ibid. 24 5 Salk. 25S. Pafoh 9 W 3. S. C Shaw's Parifti Law iyS. cites S. C. Juft.
Cafe Law 247. cites S. C S. P. MS. Cafes, Trin. 10 Ann. B. R. in Cafe of the Queen v. Little
Horftead.andPetworth, alias, Ringmer Parifti v. Petworth.
3. Five Juft ices of the Peace are too many to join in an Order for fet-
tling of a Poor Perfon ; for they may well make a Majority at the Sef-
lions, and fo confirm their own Order. Per Holt Ch. J. 12 Mod. 559.
Mich. 13 W. 3. B. R. Anon.
Poor's Set- 4. An Order oj 2 Jujlices was quafh'd, becaufe it did not appear that
they were Juflices ot the County, or for the County, but only reliding in
ii^i_ y /~ ?.. _o.it. ._. t-^i^;-^,, r»^KK„-
tlements
§J'<3__; the County. 2 Salk. 474. The King v. Dobbyn.
272.
cites
PracMuft. 21. cites S. C. S.P. Ibid. 24.— Nelf. Juft. 550. cites S. C. S. P. Dak. Juft .dp.
-5. IS. P. Juft. Cafe Law 243.
5. An Order made by the Jujlices of the County of was quafh'd, be-
caule it was not mentioned of what County they were, and here art no Rela-
tive Words, as Of the County aforefaid, or Of the faid Count)'. MS.
Cafes, Mich. 8 Ann. Anon.
6. The-
Settlement of the Poor. 405
6. The Pore and Town of Dover have Jttjlices of their own, who re-
moved a Family from St. Peter s in Dover to JJh. It was objected, That ic
did not appear that the Parifi of St. Peter's is within their JarifdicJion j
but it was anfwer'd, That Dover is inferted in the Margin, and therefore
it muft be intended that they have Jurildiction and Authority. Per
Cur. The Juitices here have a limited Jurildi&ion, and a reftrain'd
Power; and therefore it cannot be intended that they have Jurifdiftion,
unlefs it appears that they have upon the Face of the Order; and it was
quaih'd tor this (ingle Objection. Poor's Settlements 96. pi. 130. Pafch.
1721. B. R. St. Peter's Parilh. in Dover v. the Parilh of Afh in Kent.
(T) Orders of Settlement or Removal. QmJJjd in
what Caies in General.
1. AN Order of Settlement of a poor Man was made, and afterwards
J~"% altered, and a Refettlement made by a fecond Order. Per Tre-
main, This fecond Order cannot be made by Law, and therefore the Or-
der quaih'd. Cumb. 66. Mich. 3 Jac. 2. B. R. The King v. the Inhabi-
bicams ot Stud ley.
2. Two Juitices made an Order of Settlement of a poor Man in Bed- Had there
forrilhire ; two Jurtices ot Bediordlhire make an Order to fettle him in been no A P-
Bucks, the P.iriih in Bucks appeals to the Seflions in Bedfordihire; the i'do-d 1 ^
Court would not quafi the 2d Order, becaufe they had appealed upon it. would be
Cumb. 226. Mich. 5 W. & M. B. R. Svvamburn in Bucks v quafh'd.
Cumb. 355.
The King v the Inhabitants of Sr. Giles, Cambridge. J
3. Per Northey, It was fettled in the Cafe of jB00t0rl='Bi3iret, That Jul- Cafe
if the \Jl Order be naught, no fulfeqiient Order on an Appeal can make it Lavv ^
good. 2 Saik. 482. Mich. 10 V\ . 3. B. R. Anon. And fays that Hill. " r |f iaw . s ' —
1 1 \Y. 3. B. R. Same Rule was taken by Holt Ch. J. and both Orders Pradr. juft.
quam'd; and Trin. 2 Ann. the fame Refolution between ©ClOtt tUttl 2 4- citcs
ITi HMAH O. C â–
Shaw'sPa-
rifh Law 155,196. cites S C — Ibid 240. cites S. C.
(U) Orders of Settlement, or Removal. Quafli'd in
what Cafes, jor Jf r ant of Adjudication.
1. IT was moved to quafh an Order of 2 Juitices, which recited, 5 Mod. 525.
J[ \\ hereas B. is, as we are credibly inform' 'd, the Place of his laft le- H '"-^ w -
gal Settlement, not averring that it was the Place of his laft legal Set- f t ftou'id* 5 '*
dement, as it ought; for that the Statute lays, That the poor Perfon have been
fhall be removed to the Place where he was lalt legally fettled ; and it upon Oath,
was quaih'd. 2 Salk. 473. Mich. 8 W. 3. B. R. The 'Parilh of Trow- and bein S a
bridge v.Wcfton. gjjf
fojilive and
certain. 2 Shaw's Praflr. Juft. 22. cites S. C Ibid. 26. circs S C. Keif lull. 549. cites
&. C. Dalt. Juft. cap. 75. cites S. C. 'Shaw's Parifh. Law 194. cites S. C- ibid. 195. cites
J>. C. Poor Settlements 244. pi. 2S4. S. C.
5 L j S -
4-0 6
Settlement of the Poor.
Belief of an
Suffex.
S. V Tuft.
' I
24;.— Nell"
Juft.
cites b C.
J. S. is likely to become bit, •'< •'■'" ** cndM-j inform'd. No Adjudication; Per Parker, It isthe
lief of ano;her. Poor \ .Settlements 27. pi. 3S. Pafahr. 17 11. B. R. Wcltium Magna & Parva in
z. Whereas Complaint has been made to us, 'That Elizabeth Fulford^
Fulfdrd, is Idtely come into the Parifh of St. Giles Cripple-gate,
and is Hi le to the fame; and whereas on Oath made
by 1 ' " ] iz. Fullord, it appears that her Husband was loft legally fettled
, ' II ubiey ; thefe are therefore &c. It was quaihM, becaufe there is no
JiiiV-mifit of the Jultices concerning the ialt legal Settlement, but oily
the UaTlS of the Ji oman. 2 Salk. 47S. Pafch. 9 W. 3. B. R. The Inhabi-
tants of St. Giles Cripplegate v. Hackney.
Poor'sSet- j Whereas Complaint hath been made to us, 'that J. D. with his IVi fe
1 . e j [ s s and Children, came from his Place of Abode and laft legal Settlement in Bcr-
S.C. ry to Arundel, we therefore require you Sac. Naught; For there is no Ad-
— 2 Shaw's judication of the Justices, which was his lalt legal Settlement, but only
Praft. Juft. a Complaint that Berry was, which doth not appe her true or
S 3 C-Nelf. falfe - 2 Salk - 479- «**■9 W - 3- B - R - Btt ~ l 'Y PariJh v " Arundel
Juft 5
cites S.C.
here 4. Exception was taken to an Order, That it is net adjudged that the
an 1 •< ler Perjl:/ femovid was likdy to become chargeable to the Parifh ; but it is only
":''' faid that the Jujlices were inform' d fo by the Overfeers. Sed non Ailoca-
â– th c tur, becaufe there is no Need of any fuch Adjudication ; and the Order
Churchwar- was conrirm'd. Ld. Raym. Rep. 513. Hill, n W. 3. Inhabitants of
'â– ' Kingston Bowfey v. thole of Beddingham.
Ovcr'eers of
the P )o:, tint J. S. has intruded, and is likely to become chargeable ; thefe are to convey 8cc. This
â– was held to be ill, there being no Adjudication ; for the Juftices moil adjudge themielves. Poor's
Settlements 3c. pi. 47. Pafdi. 1712. B. R. Parifh of Mitton's Cafe.
2 Shaw's 5. Exception was taken to an Order of 2 Juftices, becaufe it was only
Pract.Juft. { a \c\ to be complained by the Churchwardens, That the Per/on removed w< â–
sV— — likely to' become chargeable 1 but not adjudged fo by the Jultices. Holt
ShaVs Pa- Ch. J. faid, That the Jultices cannot remove a Man unlefs he be likely
rifh Law to become chargeable; lor otherwife they might remove a Man of an
196. S C— EfLte : And he took a Diversity, that where the Order is, Whereas it
£' p-f 1 appears to us &c. on the Complaint, and that J. S. is like to become
, Antt. g.R chargeable to the Parifh, that will be well enough: But where it is as
T! here, Whereas Complaint has been made &c. that it is ill. But it was
v. Newnham agreed to be relerr'd to the Judge of Affize. It ought to appear, that the
Murrey In- p er j~ 0fl rcm0 ved is a Per/on immoveable, and there ought to be a particular
An Order Averment, That he is likely to become chargeable. 2 Salk. 491. Trim 13
-was thus ; W. 3. B. R. The Inhabitants of Suddlecomb v. Burwaih.
eas it
appears upon the Oath of Eleanor 'Jones Relitt of Edward Jones, 7 hat Jl;e and her Daughter Mary were la ft
legally fettled in Rockzil, who are likely to become chargeable ; thefe are to remove &c. It was objected,
That here is no Adjudication that they are likely to become chargeable. Per Cur. The Words, Who
are likely to become chargeable, are always the Words of the Jultices. If it had been, That they are
jikely to become chargeable, then it had been a Recital only, and the Words of the Overfeers. Poor's
Settlements 1 5. pi. 21. Trin. 12 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. the Inhabitants of Rockvill.
Vpon a Mo- g, An Order was made reciting, That whereas Complaint has been made
anOrdcTo? unto " s ^ l ^ e & c - tioat J $ wfr> o is lately come into the Parifh of Sec. with
Seflions upon a Certificate according to 8 & 9 W. 3. is atlually chargeable to the Parifh,
a Settlement, and it was qualh'd ; For the Juftices ma ft adjudge hint to be cl , or
for that it at leafi mitfl fay that it appeared to them that he was fo; bat the Jultices
0*d r' V? the " ec ^ mt a dj«d& e the Place that gives the Certificate to be the Place of his laft
they adiudgedtyd Settlement. 2 Salk. 530. Trin. 2 Ann. B. R. Maiden v. Fenwick.
htm to be lafi
fettled in fuch a Place he came from. The Court held it not neceffary fo to adjudge it ; but it not appear-
ing in the Order, That he had been chargeable to the I'arifh ; but only, That whereas he was likely
to
Settlement of the Poor.
407
to become chargeable, the Court quafhed it ; For by the Certificate the Parijhtis bound to receive him, and
cannot remove him till he becomes chargeable Actually. 11 Mod. 64. Mich. 4 Ann. B. R. The Queen v.
Whiten.
Two Jufticcs upon Iiformatien that f. S. was chargeable to the Parifh of Willerton, and upon its ap~
pearing by Certifcate from the Parijh of Wadingham that J 1 . S. belonged to that Parijh, made an Order to re-
move him to Wadinshain, without adjudging him aSually chargeable to Willerton ; and for that Reafon
the Order was qu.iil-.ed. MS. Cafes Hill. 4 Geo. B. R. The King v. the Inhabitants of Wadingham
in the County of Lincoln. And adds a N. B. This Cafe is within the S & 9 VV. 3. cap. 30.
7. An Order of two JufHces was, Whereas Complaint hath been made to S. P- Juft.
us by the Churchwardens &c. of A. that B. came to fettle in fttch a Parifh Ca, . e â„¢ n
contrary to Law, therefore they ordered to fuch a Place. And it was quafh'd shews Pratt
for Want of Adjudication, that he was likely to become chargeable. Juft. 22. cites
6 Mod. 163. Pafch. 3 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. the Inhabitants of'S.C.— Nelf.
Newnham Murrev. J. uft - 549-
cites S. C.
8. The Order mufi contain an Adjudication of the lafi legal Settlement of Shaw's Pa-
the Party. 2 Shaw's Praft. Juit. 22. cites Pafch. 6 Ann. The Queen v. rilh L . a w
tike Pariihes of Lang ley and Goring. s 9 C C by S
Name of the
Queen v. the Parities of Dargley and Goring But Mich. 9 Ann. B. R. An Order was held good
that had no Adjudication, but only that it appeared to the Juflices that fuch a one was * likely to become
cha-:ir<-.:L:e, and that fuch a. Place iv.:s the Place of lis /.. ft legal Settlement. MS, Cafes pi. 37. Trin 9
Ann. B. R.
* S. P. 10 Mod. 26. Trin. 10 W. 3. B. R. the Parrfh of Petworth's Cafe.
The Order is fufficient without any Adjudication, provided fo much is averred as is neceffary toftew
fe Matter within the Jurifd>fl?on 0] tie frjlices. Per Cur. MS. Cafes Mich. 5 Geo. The King v. the
Inhabitants of St. Nicholas Gloucefter v. 6t. Clements Worcefter.
9. Two Juftices fent a Perfon from St. Mary Ottery in Devon to St.
Mary's in Briitol, and that he was laft fettled there according to their Know-
ledge. It was objected, that the Order ihould have faid that he was kit
fettled there; For an Order is a Judgment, which mufi be certain a;id
po/it!V:\ and he might have been fettled elie where, and they not know
it. And it was qualhed per Cur. Poor's Settlements 23. pi. 32. Mich.
1713. B. R. St. Alary Ottery in Devon v. St. Mary's in Briihol.
10. The Order run thus: That f. S. has latch intruded himielf, and is In a Manu-
likely to becou/'j ckargeabh. Per Cur. This is no Adjudication, but a Re- ^ crl P r which
cita'l and Complaint". Poor's Settlements 85. pi. 115. Mich. 1718. B. R. J^Cafe it
The Pariihes of St. Nicholas v. St. Clements. is reported
thus: The
Court was moved to quafh an Order of Removal for want of an Adjudication, that the Perfon was
likely to become chargeable. The Order was to this Effect, (viz..) Whereas upon Complaint of &c. J.
S. hath intruded &c. net having occupied a Tenement of 10 /. per Ann. nor given Security &C. but is likely
to become charge â– tie &c. therefore vie require you to convey &e. Reeves, for the Order (aid, That an Ad-
judication is tot required to be made in any one certain Form, and that the Particle {but) fhews that
the fubfeqjient Words are The JulHces, and not Part of the Complaint which begins with the Word
(that) and [mull (in Propriety of Speech be continued in the fame Form. Darnel Serjeant contra.
That the Form of the Exprefflon ufed in the Beginin'^ ef the Complaint is varied in other Claufes,
which cannot but be ennftrued Part of the Complaint, as Not having occupied &c. nor having given
Security Sec. Per tot. Cur The Words {but is likely to become chargeable) are plainly Part of the Com-
plaint, and not the Opinion of the Juftices ; and Eyre ("aid, That it had been fo adjudged, and defired
Darnel to find out the Cafe. MS. Cafes Mich. 5 Geo. B. R.S. C. by the Name of the Inhabitants of
St. Nicholas in Gloucefter v. St. Clements in Worcefter.
11. It has been held, That faying a poor Perfon came to live in a 'Tene-
ment under the Value of 10 1, per Ann. will [apply the Adjudication of his be-
ing likely to become chargeable. MS. Cales.
(W) Orders
408 Settlement of the Poor.
Sce(X) (W) Orders of Settlement or Removal. Quafhed in
what Cafes for JFant of fiords. And where they fhall
be J apply d by Intendment, or by other Words in the
lame Order.
Poor's Set- i. AN Order to remove J. S. was quafhed, becaufe it was not faid
tlements254, A\ that he was peer, or * likely to Income chargealb to the Parifh. 3
J-' C -Da" SilIk - Z S5- Scrivfenham Farilh v. St. Nicholas.
Juft. cap. 75.
S C, « * S P. Poor's Settlements 24. pi. 34. Hill. 1712. Pvoyden Parifh in EfTex v. Hoxden
in Hartfordfhire.
S. P. aShaws 2. An Order was thus : Whereas J. S. is likely to become chargeable, and
Pradt. Juft.
Trin'Ti 4°- Trin - 1 7 11 - B - R - The Qp een v - the Inhabitants of Bradford.
Ann..
S. P. Shaws Parifh Law 799. â– But Poor's Settlements 10S. pi. 745. Mich. 1-22. in the Cafe of
i' t 0rfi;atn ^0anfl) t). ©if Jfifii-flrCEt ^Sartfi) in London, the like Objection was made ; And Pratt
Oli. f. and the whole Court laid, It ?>;uji nece£arily be intended to the Parifh where the Intrufion was,
and the Objection was over-ruled.
Ir was objected to an Order , That it is not faid, where he is likely to become chargeable, but it was
faid in the Complaint, Likelv to be there chargeable, but not in the Adjudication ; but it was over-
ruled. The Law muft of Neceffity fuppole it to be in the fame Place. Poor's Settlements 7. pi. 1 1. The
Purifh of Crowland v. St. John Baptift in Peterborough.
3. Whereas \t appears (not faying, unto us &c.) ill. Poor's Settlements
27. pi. 39. Trin. 171 1. B. R. Anon.
4. Whereas J. S. and his 3 Children have intruded into Petvvorth, and
their laft legal Place of Settlement was in Ringmere, and are likely to
become chargeable. It was moved to quafh it, becaufe it does not ft
forth the Ages of the Children ; But it was anfwered, That it is not ne-
ceffary in this Cafe j For the Order fays, they were lajl legally fettled in
Ringmere, and then no Matter what their Ages are: And the Court
was of the fame Opinion, and ib it was not quafhed. Poor's Settle-
ments 28. pi. 41. Trin. 17 11. B. R. The Parilh of Ringmere v. Petworth
in Sulfex.
So where an 5. Whereas J. L. is fettled in Wigtown, and is intruded into the
Order *as to p^ffo f a. Thefe are CO remove him and 2 Children. It was objected,
if^Dvke"' 1 " That it is not faid (His Children) ; For they cannot gain a Settlement by
and her 3 reafon of their Parents, unlcfs faid to be theirs ; And the next Day be-
Cbildreti; tween 15iHT0lU and CitglCb^ the fame Objection was made, but the
Ti^Vr^ 1 ' Court held it too nice a Diltincfion ; For they mult necelfarily be in-
beth was^rtie tended to be his. Poor's Settlements 30. pi. 48. Palch. 17 12. B. R. The
Widow of one Queen v. the Inhabitants of Wigtown in Cumberland.
j4braham
Dyke, deceafed, fettled in Whitechapel. It was objected, That it did not appear that they ivere Abraham
Dyke's Children ; But per Cur. The Children are under 7 Years of Age ; betides we will not pre/tune they
hadanother Father, in regard their Names are laid to be Dykes. And the Order was confirmed. Poor's
Settlements 94. pi. 178. Hill. 172?. B. R. The Parifh of St. Catherine's Colcman-Strcet v. White-
chapel.
6. An Order was to remove a poor Perfon upon Complaint of the Over-
feers and Church-wardens of Needham-Market, 'that one Sarah Cannum
has intruded herfelf into Needham- Market : And whereas it appears upon
herO.tth, 'that floe was laft fettled at Qitintins St. Mary's ; We, therefore,
adjudge accordingly : Thefe are to remove ckc. It was objected, That ir.
does
Settlement of the Poor. ^09
does not appear that Needham- Market is a Par if j, and the Statute ex-
preisly lays, Parilh. Bat Ld. Parker laid, The Words Overfeers and
Churchwardens are fufficient, and make the Order good. Poor's Settle-
ments 10. pi. 15. Pafch. 1713. B. R. The Queen v. the Inhabitants of
Needham-Alarket.
7. It was moved to quafh an Order of 2 Jt/jfices for not faying in what
County ; but note the Clerk of the Peace in the SeJJtons Order had laid it in
Somcrfet. Per Cur. The Clerk of the Peace cannot cure a Deleft in the
Original Order. 2dly, It was objected, That it is not laid, that they
are jultices of the Peace, but coram A. et B. Jufices of the County ', but
not oi the Peace : But it was find, that the Words fubfequent Jduorum
units do aicertain that they were J nil ices of the Peace. Per Cur. There
is a Quorum belides in Commilhons or' the Peace: And the Order was
juaihed. Poor's Settlements 19. pi. 27. Mich. 17 13. B. R. The Queen
V. the Inhabitants of Uplin.
8. '?• C. and S. his Wife are intruded, and are likely to become chargeable MS. Cafes
to the Parilh ot Coin St. Aid wins. It was objefted, that this Order was „ . j and
void tor Uncertainty i For it does not appear which of them intruded, Geo.S. 5 C.
and there mull be an aftual Intrusion, but the Court over-ruled the Ob- by Name of
jeftion. It is necejfarily intended that the Wife is where the Husband is ; Coin St. Al-
Belides the Words are, Likely to become chargeable, which is impof- â„¢ lns . v -
lible from its Nature, unlefs they are in the Parilh ; For otherwife how r on . ^" s'o"
can they be laid to be chargeable? Pratt Ch. J. doubted, whether an In- where an
trufion is abfolutely necejfary or no; the likelihood to become chargeable Order fet
fupplies it. Poor's Settlements 92. pi. 125. Trin. 1719. B. R. South- t° rth thr -* f- ,
r f ,-y , A 1. , ' r J ' y O. is intruded
malon v. Coin bt. Aldwyn s. t!ie Pa _
rifh cfOby,
and is became chargeable, which the JufHces adjudge. T'hefe are to remove the [aid J. O. I is Wife and
Child to the Parifli of Linsbury. It was objected, that the JufHces have removed more than is com-
plained of, neither does it appear that the Y\ ife and Child intruded themfelves. Per Cur. The Intru-
sion of the Husband is by a Confequence of Law the Intrujion of the Wife, they are Una Caro, and can-
not be fcparated, and the Settlement of the Husband is the Settlement of the Wife and Child. Poor's
Settlements 105 pi. 142. Trin. 1-22. The Parifli of Obv v. Linsbury. Poors Settlements 102. pi,
138. S. C. whereupon the Objection they were ordered to fliew Caufe,
(X) Orders of Settlement or Removal quafhed in Part.
In what Caies.
1. A N Order of two JufUces was to remove a Man and his two Cbil- Poor's Set-
f\ dren out of the Parilh of C. where he might become chargeable, he dements 207.
not having rented a Tenement of 10 /. a Tear. And it was held, That lay- £ '£____
ing they might become chargeable was not well; but it mould be, That Shaws Pa-
they were likely to become chargeable : But it was held, That faying riih Law
they had not rented a Tenement- of iol. per Ann. did fufhee; but it was '9-r c "es
held bad as to the Children ; For they are only removeable as Perfons shawTFraift
not fettled, and likely to become chargeable, or fo young, as they are j u ft 22. cite*
not able to provide tor themfelves. And it was qualhed as to the Chil- s. C.
dren. Farr. 54. Mich. 1 Ann. B. R. The Queen v. the Inhabitants of
Caple in Surry.
2. Whereas J. S. has intruded into the Parilh of A. and is likely to be- s naw ' s p
come chargeable ; thefe are to remove him with ^Children ; qualh'd as to ,-ift, Law'
the Children; Forthey have removed more than is complained of. 2 190 cites
Shaw's Pract. Jult. 28. cites the Parilh of Ippoteice v. Dunfavel in^C.
Devon.
5 M 3. It
4_io
Sewers.
3. It was moved to quaih an Order of 2 Juftices, which was in the
Form following (viz..) We do adjudge that J. S. and his Family are likely td
become chargeable, and that their lafi legal Place of Settlement was in Sec. It
was quahYd Per tot. Cur. as to the Family, lor the Uncertainty ; and
Per tot. Cur. the latter Part of the Adjudication was held good, and that
it had been fo adjudged. Mich. 2 Geo. No. 7. And Pratt Ch. J. faid,
That when the Court hath once given Judgment upon any Form of Ex-
preliion it would be inconvenient to give a contrary Judgment, becaufe
in all Probability the jultices below regulate the Form of their Orders
by the Judgments ol this Court, but it the Caie had been Res integra he
fbould have doubted. MS. Cafes. Mich. 5 Geo. B. R. The Inhabitants
ol Sicfton v. the Inhabitants of Beelton.
4. An Order was made te remove a Woman and her 3 Children from H.
to M. The Father and Mother were both Vagrants, and the Father's Set-
tlement not known, but the Mother was bom at M. and the Children at H
Affirm'd as to the Mother, but quahYd as to the Children. MS. Cafes.
Trin. n Geo.Marlton v. Hanning.
Two Juf- 5. An Order to remove J. S. his Wife and Children from A. to B. Void
tkes of the as t0 the Children, being'too general. MS. Cafes.
Peace for
the County of Eftex made an Order for the Removal of a Man, his IVife, and 3 Children, without Naming
them ; and the Order wasquafh'd as to the Children, becau'e he might have more than 3 Children,
and it would be uncertain which 3 were to be removed. MS. Cafes. Mich. 4 Geo. The Town of South-
minfter v. the Town of Coringham.
6. Two Juftices made an Order to remove a Woman and her Bajrard
Child, adjudging them likely to become chargeable, and the lafi legal Settle-
ment of the Woman to be &c. The Order was quahYd as to the Child,
becaufe the Place to whicli they were removed was not adjudged to be