1812. The KING against TheInhabitants of the existence of large parishes in the Northern counties, which by reason of their extent could not conveniently maintain their own poor, it passed the statute of Car. 2. ; which reciting the mischief, provided the remedy, viz. NANTWICH. that separate overseers should be appointed for each township, to perform all and every the acts for the necessary relief of the poor, as was appointed by the 43 Eliz. If then this question had been agitated shortly after the passing of the statute of Car. 2., I should have thought that there could not have existed a doubt, after the recital of the inconvenience, and the remedy there prescribed by the appointment of overseers for the distinct townships, that the overseers so appointed, united in themselves all the powers of churchwardens and overseers appointed for parishes under the 43 Eliz. The inconvenience of any other construction would be monstrous. Removals from one township to another must necessarily take place, and adverse questions of settlement must from time to time arise between them; and thus the churchwardens of the whole parish, if bound to interfere in the townships, would necessarily have conflicting interests. I should have thought therefore upon this statute, that the overseers of a township with the assent of the justices might have acted alone in binding out apprentices. But the difficulty, which has been urged, arises from subsequent acts of parliament, and particularly the 8 & 9 W. 3., the certificate act; which enables the overseers of any place where there are no churchwardens to act in the granting of certificates. Now where the statute of Car. 2. has already made express provision for townships, and where the 8 & 9 W. 3. was passed with a particular object regarding certificates, and does not profess to meddle with the former act, I should 1812. The KING against of NANTWICH. should not be disposed to give such a construction to one of its clauses, which gives a special power to the overseers, as to repeal the clause in the former act, which gives them a general power; but I should rather read the The Inhabitants words of the enabling clause in the 8 & 9 W. 3., as relating to a case where there are no churchwardens to look to townships; and so I would read the words of 17 G. 2. "in townships where there are no churchwardens," i. e. who can act as in a parish. In Rex v. Clifton the power of the overseers alone to grant certificates was made a point in argument, but it was unnecessary to decide it, because there the certificate was only signed by one overseer; and upon that it was contended, that if it were a certificate given under the statute of Car. 2., then there should have been two overseers; if not, but the township was to be taken as part of the parish, then the churchwardens should have joined. What was thrown out by some of the Judges upon the question whether the churchwardens of the parish at large must join in the certificate with the overseers of the township, was not meant、 to decide that question, for it became unnecessary. The only dictum which seems contrary to our present decision is in the case of Spitalfields v. Bromley, but it may be observed that the point was not properly before the Court. As a general proposition, I am not inclined to accede to it, that in every case where there are townships within a parish, the churchwardens are to superintend the whole as overseers; it would be engrafting on their duty as overseers of townships great difficulties, and the poor laws could not be administered. But I am of opinion that when overseers are appointed under the statute of Car. 2., they alone continue overseers for the township, and that the township is to be considered as not having churchwardens. BAYLEY, J. 1812. The KING against The Inhabitants of NANTWICH. BAYLEY, J. It seems to me that the overseers of this township have full power to bind out an apprentice, and that it was not necessary for the churchwardens to join in the execution. By the 43 Eliz. the churchwardens and two or more substantial householders are to be overseers, and they are to take order for the relief of the poor, and amongst other things to bind out poor children apprentices. But this power was not given to the churchwardens as a check upon the overseers, or as a distinct body from them, but only as constituting a part of the same body of overseers; and in that character only they were required to join. Then by the 13 & 14 Car. 2. it was provided, that where a parish was not able to reap the benefit of the 43 Eliz., the townships within it should have separate overseers of their own; and the statute farther provided that such overseers should do all and every the acts for the necessary relief of the poor, as was appointed by the 43 Eliz. They were therefore from that time the only overseers to act for their township, and whether or not the churchwardens retained the power of concurring, at all events they were not required to concur; but the overseers might do all acts for the necessary relief for the poor independent of the churchwardens. Then the binding of apprentices, no doubt, comes within the meaning of an act for the relief of the poor, because it is so treated by the 43 Eliz. Much inconvenience would ensue from holding it necessary for the churchwardens of the parish to concur with the overseers of the township in the ordering of the poor; for they would have conflicting interests to bias their minds; and therefore I think the 13 & 14 Car. 2. was designed to place townships for all such purposes upon the footing of distinct parishes. Then Then the 8 & 9 W. 3. did not mean to interfere with the 13 & 14 Car. 2., neither did the 17 G. 2. The words of the former are material to be considered, for it would seem from the use of the words, "the churchwardens and overseers of any parish, township, or place, or the overseers of any other place where there are no churchwardens, that the legislature considered that the word churchwardens would apply to a township as well as a parish. Perhaps it may be inaccurate so to apply it, for there may be no instance of a church for a township; but still if there were a chapel within it, the legislature might think the word not inapplicable. The act therefore probably meant that if there were persons within a township exercising a similar function to that of churchwardens, they should join: but it seems to me that it would be incongruous to hold that it meant that the churchwardens of a parish were to concur in granting a township certificate, for then the churchwardens who were resident in township A. might have to certify that the pauper was settled in township B. Then the 17 G. 2. has not made such an impression on my mind, as to induce me to think this construction of the stat. of Car. 2. is a wrong one. The words of sect. 15. are, "the overseers of the poor within any township or place where there are no churchwardens shall act in all matters relating to the poor as churchwardens and overseers," &c. The object of it seems to me to have been this, that as there might be acts necessary to be done by the overseers of townships, which might not immediately fall under the description of acts for the relief of the poor, and therefore would not be included in the stat. Car. 2; provision should be made for giving them all parochial powers whatsoever. The words "where no churchwardens" mean where there 1812. The KING against TheInhabitants of NANTWICH. 1812. The KING against The Inhabitants of NANTWICH. there are no such churchwardens as with the overseers constitute the officers of that place. Therefore I think the 13 & 14 Car. 2. warrants such an indenture as the present, and that this construction is not broken in upon by the 8 & 9 W. 3. or 17 G. 2; and notwithstanding what was said in the case of Spitalfields v. Bromley, the principle seems to be that where the parish is divided into townships, each township is to provide for its own poor as a distinct parish. In Rex v. Kirby Stephen (a) the Court so considered it, in holding an order of removal to the township of Kirby Stephen, although directed to the parish of Kirby Stephen, to be conclusive on the township which neglected to appeal; and that rather breaks in upon the doctrine in Spitalfields v. Bromley. Order of sessions quashed. (a) 2 Bott. 687. last edit, Wednesday, Policy on goods at and from G. to any port in the Baltic, be venture from the loading THIS BELL and Others against HOBSON. HIS was an action on a policy of insurance on goods, tried before Lord Ellenborough, C. J. at Guildhall. the ad- The policy was effected on the 15th of June 1810, "at and from Gottenburgh to any port or ports, place or thereofon board places, in the Baltic, backwards and forwards, and forthe policy was wards and backwards, with leave to seek, join, and exin continuation change convoy, carry, use, and exchange simulated papers, clearances, and ship's papers, touch at all ports, places, and islands, for all purposes whatsoever, take in and discharge goods wherever the ship may touch at, includ the ship, and declared to be of a former policy; which was a policy from V. to her port of discharge in the united kingdom, or any ports in the Baltic, with liberty to take in and discharge goods wheresoever, to return 12 per cent, if the voyage ended at G.: Held that the assured were entitled to recover, although the goods were not loaded on board at G. but at V. and although the defendant was not an underwriter on the former policy. ing |