The Sun.
London, England, 1807-06-08 00:00:00

THE KINGIf. THE PARISH OF ERITH.

This case' respeded the 'settlenient of a'pauper.—
Two Magistrates-, of the County Kent, had made
an order :for the tiAnoVat of William Harris, from
the parish of ClaubroOk to that of Eritli, -which or-
der the Quarter Sessions had: contirmed,'subjea to
the ()Pinion of the Court upOn a case • which stated
that the Bather of the patiper Harris, in his lifetime,
Was in the libbir of wanderipg about- the Country, -1
Without any fixed place of abode ; that during this
-vagrancy Harris w..:s born, and that when passing
the parish of Erith, his father said to him, ‘.` that.
is where you were born,. in the parish of
_Frith.:'—
The question; therefore, for the • decision Of the ,
Court was; if this,de,elaration of the father, related •
by the son, were -evidence as to , the place of that-
son's birth, sufficient to gain him a settlement in
the pariSh of Erith
Messrs..TAnnY and ANDREWS, in support of the
order of removal, contended, that it was decided by
a great number of cases upon this iubjed, that the -
declaration of the:parent as-to the time of the birth
cif the child vat good evidence, and upon the shine
ptinciple the Cpurt must be of opinion. that the de,
claration of the parent as to the place, of the birth
of the child was equally valid.
Lord ELLENEOROVVH.---" Can you cite a case
where that has been determined ?,"
Messrs. TADDY and Atinr,Ews replied, that no
decision of that imrtictilar point had, taken place, hut
"they mentioned the case of Stephens v,, Moss,'
(Cowp. 591.) where it was decided that the deciara-
Con of the parent_ as to the time of the-birth. was
admissible testimony. This, case fell entirely within
the•renson of a caste of ejedtnicnt, vu here, when the
questiorr:was if a party died abroad or not, the_hear-
. say eVidence of the parent was constantly deemed
sufficient. . •
Lord ELLtr.POROU(4II---` We find In this case
that the father of the pauper is passing7by Erith, and
he says to his son, You were born in Erith; It has
been expressly (heckled in the case of the King v.
Ch adderton, that such a declaration isnot achnissible."
Messrs. PITCAIRN
,and BERENS, on the contrary,
argued, that in order 19 excite any doubt in the 'bind
.of the court; it was necessary to bring the'present
within some of the excepted cases, where the decla-
ration of,parents was deemed sufficient:lt was hen
* in many cases that inlslr-say evidence might be ad-
mitted to prove the reputation of a f. 1,1, but not the
fad itself, A person might sp;-.1.1-; as to the belief of
the existence of a custom, brit-he could not give tes-
timony as to What bI hers might have said of the 'prac-
tice of the custotii. It was L:'11-01,10 to say„ that where

tac.t might be proved in .difft...rent ways': hear-say
testimony could not
,b'e. admitted,. •
Lord ELLENtiOicO,,tion Said, that'as this•case might
be of eery general irOportance„and as the Swint had
never been direaly decided, the Couri would take
time before it dulivere",d its opinion.
At oneo'ciock the judgeS'ot this Court attendecta
private conference with ,their brethren on the Bench,
to Lhe tax. c equer Chaniner ; and_at two o'clo-Ck the
Chief Justice went to Guildhall, to try some Linde-
te.ndect causes ofno:pnbiiC interest.