1861.

The QUEEN

V.

RUYTON.

in the county of Shropshire, in right of her father William Rowlands, whose settlement is in your said parish, Inhabitants of township or place of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns, in right of his late father the said William Rowlands, deceased, whose settlement was in your said parish, township or place of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns at the time that his said son the said William Rowlands was emancipated; and the said late William Rowlands, the said late grandfather of the said Anne Rowlands, was settled in your said parish, township or place of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns at the time his said son was emancipated, in right of his father the said late Thomas Rowlands, deceased. The settlement of the said Thomas Rowlands has been acknowledged to be in your said parish, township or place of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns, by the overseers of the poor of your said parish, township or place of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns by giving unto Ann Rowlands, widow of the said Thomas Rowlands, weekly relief for several years previous and up to the time of her death, whilst she resided in Pentrefelin, in the township or place of Wrexham Abbott. That Samuel Rowlands, cousin to the said William Rowlands, the said father of the said Ann Rowlands, and the son of the late Edward Rowlands, shoemaker, deceased, and grandson to the said late Thomas Rowlands and Ann his wife, was, by an order under the hands and seals of R. M. Lloyd and H. W. Meredith, Esquires, two of Her Majesty's justices of the peace acting in and for the said county of Denbigh, bearing date the 19th day of January 1843, removed from the said township or place of Wrexham Abbott to your said parish, township or place of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns; the said order was never appealed against. That neither the said Ann Rowlands

or the said William Rowlands her father, ever did any act whereby to gain a settlement in their own right: neither did the said William Rowlands the elder, deceased, acquire any settlement in his own right previous to his said son William Row ands being emancipated."

Grounds of appeal (those which are material are alone set out):

"1. That the said order is bad and defective on the face thereof.

"2. That the said Ann Rowlands and her said children, at the time the said order was made, were not legally settled in our said parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns.

"3. That the place of settlement of the said Ann Rowlands and her said children is not in our parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns in right of her father William Rowlands.

"4. That the place of settlement of the said William Rowlands (the father of the said Ann Rowlands) is not in our parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns, in right of his late father the said late William Rowlands, deceased.

"5. That the said William Rowlands deceased, the grandfather of the said Ann Rowlands, was not legally settled in our said parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns.

"6. That the said William Rowlands, the grandfather of the said Ann Rowlands, was not settled in our said parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns, in right of his father the late Thomas Rowlands, deceased.

"7. That the said Thomas Rowlands, deceased, was not settled in our said parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns.

"8. That the said settlement of the said Thomas

1861.

The QUEEN

V.

Inhabitants of

RUYTON.

Rowlands has not been acknowledged to be in our said parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns by the overseers of the poor of our said parish, by giving to Ann Rowlands, widow of the late Thomas Rowlands, weekly relief whilst she resided in Pentrefelin, in the township of Wrexham Abbott.

"9. That Samuel Rowlands, cousin of the said William Rowlands, the father of the said Ann Rowlands, and the son of the late Edward Rowlands deceased, and grandson to the said late Thomas Rowlands and Ann his wife, was not, by any order in that behalf duly made, removed from the township of Wrexham Abbott to our said parish of Ruyton of the Eleven Towns.

F. E. J. McIntyre having obtained a rule calling on the parish of St. Bridget, Chester, to shew cause why the order of Sessions should not be quashed; it was argued in Easter Term, on 27th April: before Cockburn C. J., Crompton and Hill JJ.

E. Beavan appeared in support of the order of Sessions, but the Court called on

McIntyre and Horatio Lloyd, for the appellants.— This evidence was not admissible under these grounds of removal. The question depends on stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31. The first section having repealed so much of the former stat. 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 76. as provides, in cases of orders of removal, that the notice thereby required to be sent by the overseers or guardians of the parish obtaining the order shall be accompanied by a copy the examination upon which the order was made; the second section enacts, "instead thereof such notice

of

shall be accompanied by a statement in writing under the hands of such overseers or such guardians, or any three or more of such guardians, setting forth the grounds of such removal, including the particulars of the settlement or settlements relied upon in support thereof: Provided always, that on the hearing of any appeal against any order of removal it shall not be lawful for the respondents to go into or give evidence of any other grounds of removal than those set forth in such statement." Then, by sect. 4. "Whereas a statement of the grounds of removal or of appeal is required to be communicated for the purpose of enabling the party receiving it to inquire into the subject of such statement, and, if need be, to prepare for trial; be it therefore enacted, that upon the hearing of any appeal against an order of removal no objection whatever on account of any defect in the form of setting forth any ground of removal or of appeal in any such statement shall be allowed, and no objection to the reception of legal evidence offered in support of a ground of removal or appeal alleged to be set forth in any such statement shall prevail, unless the Court shall be of opinion that such alleged ground is so imperfectly or incorrectly set forth as to be insufficient to enable the party receiving the same to inquire into the subject of such statement, and to prepare for trial: Provided always, that in all cases where the Court shall be of opinion that any such objection to such statement or to the reception of evidence ought to prevail, it shall be lawful for such Court, if it shall so think fit, to cause any such statement of grounds of removal or appeal to be forthwith amended by some officer of the Court or otherwise, on such terms as to payment of B. & S.

VOL. I.

20

1861.

The QUEEN

costs to the other party, or postponing the trial to another day in the same Sessions or to the next subsequent Inhabitants of Sessions, or both payment of costs and postponement, as to such Court shall appear just and reasonable.”

V.

RUYTON.

The respondents rely on a derivative settlement from the great-grandfather of the pauper, and the grounds of removal allege an acknowledgment of that settlement by relief given to the great-grandmother of the pauper, and by a collateral relation having been removed to the appellant parish. But the respondents further seek to shew the removal to the appellant parish of another collateral relation, the wife of a grandson of the common ancestor. No objections can be gone into which are not stated in the notice of appeal; Reg. v. The Churchwardens of Birmingham (a): and each acknowledgment here must be taken as a distinct ground of removal; for, where acknowledgment is relied on, all the particulars of it must be set out; Rex v. The Justices of Derbyshire (b). [Cockburn C. J. Those cases were before the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31.] They are still authority, for the only difference introduced by the statute in this respect is, that formerly the particulars of the settlement relied on were disclosed by the examination, whereas now they are disclosed by the order of removal. The object of the statute was to give the means of inquiry. With proper notice the appellants here might have come prepared to shew that the relief given to the grandmother of the pauper was given through mistake, or that the settlement obtained by the son was obtained by him in his own right. If the ground of removal were stated to be a settlement by hiring and service in the parish, proof of another settlement by hiring and service in (a) 8 Q. B. 410. (b) 6 A. & E. 885.