Andrews the king against the inhabitant OF Norton the maiden settlement of a  marry woman be suspend and she can be remove under it during the coverture SC  burr SC motion by sir Thomas Abney to quash a order of two justice for the  removal of Ellan Buriningliam from Stretford to Norton and also a order of  session confirm the same and the principal and only objection upon which the  court below give any opinion be that it do not appear the husband of the  pauper be dead and he argue that it be state only that the husband be anative  of Ireland and leave his wife and go abroad several year ago and have continue  so ever since and where he now be or reside they know not  he may for aught  appear to the contrary be alive and if so the wife can be send to Norton where  it be say in the order her settlement be at and before her intermarriage and  sir Thomas cite the follow case the parish of Fanwick and of Marson a call  Hanway v Marston burr SC queen viner a Trin I geo it be there declare by the  chief justice that the settlement of a woman who marry a vagrant be suspend  during the coverture and that as the husband can be send to the place of the  wife settlement so neither can the wife herself because a husband and wife can  be part the parish of Shadwell and of saint John in pine b burr SC b Trin g  one Ridley a vagrant have no settlement marry a woman who have a settlement in  saint John Wapping and have four child by her bear in Stepney and it be hold  that the child be not settle in the place where they be bear but where the  wife have a settlement but that this be suspend during the coverture and it  revive again upon the death of the husband on the other side it be argue by Mr  denison that sufficient matter be state in the session order to show the  husband be dead and it have be determine that if a woman marry a man who never  have a legal settlement Andrews after her husband death she may be send to the  place of her last settlement and so may also the child of the marriage the  only reason wherefore a woman can be send to the place of her settlement in  the lifetime of the husband be because the husband and wife can be separate  but this can happen here because it appear that suppose the husband to be  alive he be at least absent the question therefore be where the woman be to be  send now the Act of removal direct that person shall be send to the place of  their last legal settlement and there be no such thing as the suspension of a  settlement if a man marry a woman who have a freehold or leasehold estate the  husband and wife can be remove from the place where the land lie to which last  point the court agree because it be the estate of the husband but the court be  unanimous and clear of opinion that this order be ill because Andrews er p it  do not appear that the husband be dead but rather the contrary it be state  that where he be or reside they know not for if the husband have no settlement  the wife can be send any where because they be but one person and it be  against the law of nature to separate they and if justice of peace have such  power they will have in effect the power of divorce for this reason the wife  settlement during the coverture be suspend but after the husband death both  she and her child may be send to the place where she be last settle and so it  have be determine both the order be therefore quash it have be since determine  that the maiden settlement be not suspend by marriage king saint botolph burr  SC sayer v call