Pauper; being settled by apprenticeship in M., gained a subsequent settlement in W. by residing on an estate there, but, becoming lunatic while he continued to reside on the same estate, he was, after the passing of stat. 4 and 6 W. 4, c. 76, removed by his relations to the county lunatic asylum, more than ten miles from W., and was for several years maintained in that asylum, partly by his relatives, partly by the rents of his said estate, until, those resources proving inadequate, he was taken from the asylum and brought to W. for one night, and was then removed as a pauper lunatic to the same asylum, by warrant under stat. 9 G. 4, c. 40, s. 38. Held, that, an order of justices on the overseers of W., under the last-mentioned clause, for the payment of a weekly sum for his maintenance in the asylum, was wrong, the pauper having, under stat. 4 and 5 W, 4, c. 76, s. 68, lost his settlement in W. by ceasing to inhabit.
Citations:
[1842] EngR 86, (1842) 2 QB 450, (1842) 114 ER 178
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Benefits, Local Government
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.307041