THIS was an appeal against an order of justices for If one party the removal of Marianne Old and her six children from prove a contract without the parish of Little Petherick to the parish of Padstow, its appearing either upon both in the county of Cornwall. The Court of Quarter the examinaSessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of tion in chief this Court upon the following case.

In support of the order of removal the respondent

or upon cross examination that the contract was re

duced into writing, and the

contract was

incumbent

parish proved by parol evidence, that in 1828 the pauper's husband, Martin Old, who is now living in America, adverse party rented two fields in the parish of Padstow of one Corkhill, proves that the at 157. a-year; that he occupied and paid the rent from reduced into Michaelmas 1828 to Michaelmas 1830; and that during writing, it is the first year of such tenancy and occupation, he resided in the parish of Padstow for a period of forty days and upwards. For the appellant parish, a witness was called who stated that he had been a clerk of the said Corkhill, who has since become a bankrupt; that he was present

B

upon such adverse party to produce, or to procure the the written production of, instrument.

to a master

notice of the intended

ainst an order of justices for the Where a child l'hompson from the township of prentice by the is bound apity of Cumberland, to the township parish of A. same county, the Court of Quarter resident in the the order, subject to the opinion of parish of B., ollowing case :William Thompson, a poor boy, of and binding must, d in the said township of Threlkeld, c. 139, be hday of January, 1819, pursuant to an overseers of given to the justices of that county, bound apprentice B., though A. rchwardens and overseers of the poor of the the same

under 56 G. 3,

and B. are in

dmund Forster, of and county.

denture, for a trein mentioned.

eswick, in the same

e parish of Cros

from the town

1832.

in 1828, when the said Martin Old took the fields in The KING question of his master, and that the conditions of the

v.

PADSTOW.

said taking were reduced into writing and signed by the parties on unstamped paper.

The question submitted to the opinion of the Court of K. B. is, whether the Court of Quarter Sessions was justified in confirming the order, or whether erasing the evidence previously given on the part of the respondents, and rescinding the conclusion which arose upon that evidence, the Court of Quarter Sessions ought to have quashed this order of removal.

Coleridge, Serjt. and Crowder, in support of the order. It is admitted that since the passing of 6 Geo. 4, cap. 57, the terms of the tenancy may become material; and where there is a written agreement it ought in general to be produced. Here a primâ facie case was made out by the respondents, without shewing that there was a written agreement respecting the tenancy. The appellants afterwards proved by their own witness that there was a written agreement. After the respondents had finished their case, the appellants could not take advantage of the written agreement without producing it themselves; Fielder v. Wray (a). If it was intended that the respondents should produce the written agreement, notice should have been given them to do so; Stevens v. Pinney (b).

Follett contrà. This is a point not only of evidence but of practice. The settlement, if acquired, was gained under the 6 Geo. 4, cap. 57. It was therefore necessary to prove the terms of the tenancy by the agreement. No settlement can now be gained by proving merely the occupation and payment of rent. If it be proved in (a) 6 Bingh. 332; 3 M. & P. 659. (b) 8 Taunt, 328.

any part of the case that there is an agreement in writing, it ought to be produced.

By the COURT.-The rule is perfectly well established. If it appear on cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness that there is a written contract, the plaintiff must produce it: if the defendant prove it by his own witness, the defendant must produce it. The practice has always been in accordance with this rule.

Order of Sessions confirmed (a).

(a) And see Bucher v. Jarratt, 3 Bos. & Pul. 143; Rex v. Holy Trinity and St. Margaret's, Hull, 1 Mann. & Ryl. Mag. C. 146;

7 B. & C. 611; Rex v. Rawden,
2 Mann. & Ryl. Mag. C. 44; 8
B. & C. 708.

1832.

The KING

υ.

PADSTOW.

The KING v. the Inhabitants of THRELkeld.

UPON an appeal against an order of justices for the Where a child

removal of William Thompson from the township of Keswick, in the county of Cumberland, to the township

is bound ap prentice by the parish of A.

to a master

of Threlkeld, in the same county, the Court of Quarter resident in the Sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of

parish of B.,

notice of the intended

binding must, under 56 G. 3, c. 139, be given to the overseers of

B., though 4.

this Court on the following case :—
The pauper, William Thompson, a poor boy, of and
then legally settled in the said township of Threlkeld,
was, on the 20th day of January, 1819, pursuant to an
order of two justices of that county, bound apprentice
by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the the same
said township of Threlkeld, to Edmund Forster, of and county.
residing within the township of Keswick, in the same
county, by indenture, for a term therein mentioned.

The township of Keswick is in the parish of Crosthwaite, and is about four miles distant from the town

and B. are in