Saturday 18 Oct 1845 (p. 2, col. 7) CUMBERLAND QUARTER SESSIONS. APPEALS. [continued] WHITEHAVEN Removant, HOLME ST. CUTHBERT, Appellant. This was an appeal against an order for the removal of Elisabeth PALMER and her children, deserted by the husband, from Whitehaven to Holme Saint Cuthbert. Mr. GREIG appeared for the appellant; Mr. RAMSHAY for the removant. Mr. GREIG objected that the material facts of the case were attempted to be established by illegal evidence. The Bench overruled the objection. Mr. RAMSHAY then called Thomas PALMER to show that his father, Nathaniel, rented a tenement at Ellerside, of £140 per annum, and that by living with him he acquired a settlement. Mr. GREIG said he should show that the pauper, instead of being a settled parishioner, had got settlement in another township, Papcastle. Mr. RAMSHAY contended that the admission by another township, though evidence against a party making the admission, was no evidence against the party in this appeal. Mr. GREIG, in reply, said every thing necessary to establish a settlement in a third parish must necessarily have taken place in the absence of the removants, and unknown to them. He contended that, as he could introduce transactions in proof, such a settlement by hiring or apprenticeship, a subsequent settlement by acknowledgment, superseding a birth settlement, he was equally entitled to bring forward. In reply to Mr. RAMSHAY, Mr. GREIG said he had no cases to offer, in support of his argument—there were none. Papcastle would have the opportunity of appealing, and showing, if it could, that relief was given in mistake. The CHAIRMAN said the question was whether they might infer a settlement, and let that supersede an actual settlement. Mr. RAMSHAY said it was a question whether the removing parish should be left to take the chance of getting a settlement in Papcastle, instead of letting Mr. GREIG show by facts that the pauper had one there. They would lose a settlement upon him, without getting one elsewhere. The CHAIRMAN said with respect to the parties in court the removants might prove a good settlement. You upset that, not by showing another settlement, but only the presumption of a settlement which may turn out utterly erroneous, to the great inconvenience of the removing parish, which, if Papcastle showed that relief had been given by mistake, would be put to the expense of a double order of removal. He should not allow Mr. GREIG to go into the alleged subsequent settlement. After some further discussion, The CHAIRMAN said the Court was of opinion that the order must be confirmed, subject to a case upon the last point of objection. An entry was then made—"Case granted, on the refusal of session to admit evidence of subsequent settlement by acknowledgment as set forth in a statement of grounds."