Page images
PDF

to the servant in the place where the last forty daj* of sue

service were performed. Here the service with the .master fc

the last forty flays ended at Exmoulk. There was no cout

nuance of service with the master, after the master's return t

Hath East on. In /Ae Alton case, ;; there «as many paiticuli

"circumstances: flic servant was burn at Elvetham, under

"certificate from Alton; and couid not gain a settleinei

*'there by his original hiring and service in that place; n

"without a discontinuance of it and a new subsequent hiriu

*' But no such discontinuance ever happened in that case; t!

"service did not end at Scarborough, it continued. The sc

"vant at Scarborough proposed a new agreement for anoth

"year. Jlis master said, it would be time enough when th

"returned home to Elvetham. Whereupon the servant co

"tinned on, for about six weeks, until they returned

"Elvetham ; when he was again hired by his master for ath

"year, and served it out at Elvetham, and continued in

"master's service for seven years more, iu Elvetham. So tl

*l it was a continuation of the original hiring: the contr

« did not end at Scarborough. The question therefore in t

<{ case was, "Whether serving his master,, who resided at Sc\

*' borough as a sojourner, for above forty days, should g

<( the servant a settlement (here, when his former hiring

'' Elvetham was not discontinued nor ended, at Scarborou

•'but on the contrary continued and went, on until and al

"their return to the master's general residence at Elvethat

"But that case does not lay it down generally, that so

<< vants can gain settlements at places where people, go

*' drink waters, though they serve their roasters or mist o:

li there for 40 days. If it does, it is wrong; for no s

t{ general rule ought to be laid down." We are all of

nion, that this servant, who went with his master to this pi

and served him there for the last forty days of hist sen

which ended at this place, and was not at all conlinuei

any further time or place, is legally settled there by ser

the last forty days at it.— IVilles J. now strongly dcci

his assent to this opinion, and added, that he hoped it ■•■

now be understood, that ' serving a master forty days at a

* lie place g;iins the servant a settlement at that public p

Burrows Sell. Cases, 774. [the like point was also de term in

the case of the A", v. St. Andrew's Holborn— Sec p. 158 in

And it is not necessary to the gaining a settlement

the scrvantshould reside in the tame house with the ni)

—Thus in the X. r. H'hitechapel, Ea. 11 Geo. 1, the

per was hired by a person who kept a glasshouse in 7/

chapel, for five years; to work at this glasshouse, at

per week; the pauper never lodged with his master ii

house any part of the time, but lodged at another hou

the parish. It was objected that this was not such a s«

as was intended by the statute, for this man having

lodged in his master's house, could not be considere jirt of his master's family, and therefore was no such a servant as could gain a settlement.—But by The Coort. The pauper lias gained a good settlement in Whitechapel; for being hired to serve above one year, and having served and resided in the same parish pursuant to such hiring, he hath folly complied with the statute, and it is not material whether be lodged at his master's or at another house, so that it were within the parish. 2 Sess. Cos. Hi. Foley, 146. 1 BeU, ConsCs ed. 457.

So a service performed under a hiring for a year, in a different parish from that where the master dwells, will gain a settlement.—Thus in St. Peler't in Oxjord v. Chipping IVyamb, Mk. 9 Geo. I, it appeared that the master of the Oxon stage-coaches hired a servant for a year, to stay at an inn in ffjfumb where the coach baited, and to take care of the horses: he lived there for a whole year; but the master lived all the-while in Oxford.—By The Court. A settlement is l«uied by the service in H'ycomb. 1 Strange, 526.

So in Hilltop's lla'JUld r. St. Peter's, Hit. 1 Geo. 1. the pauper wis hired to one Mr. Arnold, to serve him for one year in the capacity of huntsman. Mr. Arnold was an inhabitant of St. Anne's Soho, and had no settlement, habitation, or place in St. Peter's except his dog.kennel, but lived sometimes at hij house in Westminster, and sometimes at his seat is Northamptonshire. 'The pauper boarded and lodged with 'f person in the parish of St. Peter's, merely for the purpose 'of looking after his master's hounds.' He served out the vear n the parish o(St. Peter's, where, though he was occasionally ablest, he lived during the last forty days of the year. — Hy MlCouar. This case is exactly like that of St. Vetcr'sOrftrd. This man certainly gained a settlement in St. Peter's Iboajbhis master never lived there. Foley, 197. '1 Strange, 791. 2 Boll, Const's ed. 458.

So in the K. v. East lliley, Mic. 12 Geo. 3, the pauper wa» Mred as a groom, for one year certain, to the earl of I'ortmore, who fben lived at Weybridge, to look after the earl's running tones, which then stood at Burrow's.Brook in GloucesterAire. He continued in that service, under renewed hiring, for tk*e* years successively,but during the said three years, removed froa burruiz's. Brook, and afterwards from place to place with, the said horses: the last ten months of the time he resided With the said horses at East llsley, which was a public place -ing and training running horses: the carl had not **v hous< at East llsley, nor any estate there; and the quesWhether a groom, residing at a public place where his Batter had no house nor estate, merely for the purpose of training running horses, could thereby gain a settlement ?—And THr Cociit were unanimously of opinion that it was a good settlement; and lord Man'Jield observed, that it was exactly 'be swne case as that of the huntsman at St. Alban's. Burr&i Sttt. Cases, 722.

[graphic]

And the settlement of the 'errant shall be in that parish ir which he lodges.—Thus in Jhe K. Spital/ieids, Mie. 11 Geo, 1, the pauper was hired to :>erve for five yvars, which lime he accordingly served iu the parish of J, but lodged the whol(

time in the parish of B By The Court, lie must be settled

at B, because of his inhabitancy there. - 8 Mud. Rtp. 369.

But less than 40 days resideuce in a |vari»h will not gain a settlement.—tThus in Goring v. Molesworth, Ea. 4 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired fur a year, and served the year; the person to whom he was hired lived at Goring, and k.-pt a boat which navigated from Goring to London; but tlut pauper did not live in. the whole .year 40 days in the parish of Goring, but served out the year on board the boat.—By nit Court. It is to be understood by this order, that the pauper did not reside in the parish for 40 days in the whole at any different "times within the year; therefore this is not a good settlement. 1 Barnard, K. B. 436. 1 Sess. Cos. 327. Cas. of Sett, und Rem. 219.

And the 40 days residence of the servant nt-ed not be 40 days successively; it is sufficient if he reside 40 days at different times during the year.—Thus in Greenwich v. Longdon, Mic. 18 Geo. 2, the pauper was the daughter of a person who, iu his life time, hired himself for a year and served a year as ali. Tery servant, at 71. wages, to one Captain Sauntlenton, of the William and Mary yacht, who had a house and family at Greenxtich, and resided there when not absent on the king's service : his master made frequent voyages to and from Holland; and he always attended him in the same; but he never was forty days together at Greenw ich, though during Ms service he teat there 40 days at different times.— By The Court. It need not be 40 days all together; it is sufficient if within the year he reside 40 days in the whole.—It was therefore adjudged that the pauper's father had gained a settlement in Greenwich. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 243.

And if the residence of a servant be alternately in two parishes, but he does not continue successively for forty days in either, but more than forty days interruptedly in both, he shall gain s settlement in that parish in which he lust served.—Thus in Lowest w. Lanstepkan, Ea. 16 Geo. 3, the pauper was hired for a year to a person of the parish of Lanstephan, where his master occupied his own estate. He continued with his master in Lanstepkan till some time before St. Peter's.Me, when his master and family removed to Lozcest, in which parish his master rented another farm. He continued with his master in levels till the 16th of January following, altogether, when his master with his family removed to Lanstepkan, and constantly resided there; but the pauper was sent by his master back to Lozcets to thresh, and look after his master's cattle. The v»"' per staid in Lozcest two or three nights and days, and ate and lodged there; and then returned again to Lanstepkan for two or three days or a week at a time, and ate and lodged there; and then returned again to Lvuus in like manner as aforesaid;

«d so continued betteeen the said parishes to the end of W<; year. The pauper never continued 40 days together in either of the said parishes, but lived and resided as aforesaid more ban 40 days in the whole in each: he resided most part of thektter part of his service in Lanstephan, and lodged there the list night; and from thence went to Loices$ in the mommy, aid took some cattle of his master's from thence to the lh$-Fair, where the pauper finished his service. The Court }M him to be last legally settled in Lanstephan. Burrertft

■>:«. CW. 825.

And if a servant reside part of the year in one parish, and pirt is another, at different times and intervals, making when aided together more than 40 days in each, his settlement is in ike parish where he slept the last nit lit.—Thus in the K. v. /Misid, E%. 51 Geo. 3, the pauper hired himself at Midland f'jrayeu to a blacksmith who had a house and shop at fir ad. ky, aadMother house and shop at IluKand, and who resided oscaaoaally at each place, but whose family resided constantly atBrt&y. The pauper served the year. He worked at the •••'•«p at iiilknd, and lay there fire nijhts in the week during >«r, and sometimes anight or two in the week besides, nlw h* lay at Bradley, and on the Saturday and Stnday a im the year through, he lay at Bradley and never at Hid. !ari to those nights. 'He never resided 4()<ta\s together in 'Xf place; but resided more than 40 days at each in the and the two last nights in the year he resided at lirad}■—It contended, that the pauper was settled where he - jdilept the greater-number of nights.—But oy The Cockt. Nt mtfcority has been cited in support of the position (hat the tit) is to be the rule; and here it is indeed hard to say iO'hrt of the two parishes the pauper resided most; the rJett down at the bar, that the last night of the rest. ** ■ to be connected with (he former service in the same pzriAt and reckoned as one and the same, seems a very good I Doug. Soo.ed. 657.

the A', v. Iveston, Ea, 23 Geo. 3, the pauper wa* it Martinmas to serve as a collier for one year. Ki,o fatten a,e too separate townships in the parish of Lwhuitr, and maintain their own respective) poor. The ; entered into the service, and served out the whole be resided at Kyo when he was hired, and continued till ilay.day following, when he married. About 14. • 'after his marriage he took a cottago in Jveiton, and "itawt the privity of his master removed-thither from Kyo ^'th Ug wifCj where they continued above 40 days, 'mid ""il about 14 day* preceding the expiration of his service; J«d then they returned to Kyo.By Tht> Court. The :-ie- » it is recognized in the K. v. llulland, seems to be -stable to the construction of the act of parliament; for Write jj not consummate till the last day: the servant

[graphic]

sliall therefore be settled in the place where he served whi it was so"" completed. Catdecot's Cases, 288.

So also in the K. v. Great Bockham, Tr. 26 Geo. 3, will a servant was hired for a year in the parish of Fetclim, ft after 40 days serving married, and from that time slept wt his wife every night for the remainder of the year in thep lish oiGrcat Bockham., except the l;ist, when he slept at I master's iu the parish of Fetcham.—It was held, that hi? si tlemcnt was in Fttcham.^Caldccot's Cases, 290.

So if a servant during the service marries, and afterwai sleeps with his wife in another parish for -10 days, this, althmi it be without the knowledge or consent ol the master, v gain a settlement. Thus in the K. v. Hedsor, Tr. 18 Geo. the pauper was hired for a year to lord Boston, and sen him as a gardener for several years in the parish of Hedsor :. 95 days before the end oi the fourth year he married a worn of the parish of Little Marlon, and from the time of his mi riage, till the expiration of that year's service, he lodged with wife in the parish of Little Marlow 40 nights, but not succ sively, and did not lodge 40 nights elsewhere after his marriai It did not appear that lord Boston had any property in Lit Marlow parish, or that the pauper ever had his master's cc sent to be absent for the said forty nights in which he lodj at Little Marlon; nor did it appear where he lodged the I night of that year in which he married, and which com pie his service. It was contended, that the pauper had not gaif a settlement in Little Marlow, for that the court would \ permit a servant to gain a settlement in a parish where master had no property, and where he was not in his mash service, where consequently he ought not to haver been, i where in point of fact his master did not know that he w clandestinely with respect to his master, and in fraud of parish, who might not know where he slept, and theeef could not remove him. On the other side it was insisted,! a variety of cases had decided that a man is settled where lodges the last 40 days ; and that those days need not be I cessive. But the only difficulty was, Whether the want of master's knowledge of the fact could make any difl'erem and that if his master's business was done as well as if he h) eel in the family, which the case shewed tlutt it must have be it could make none....By lord Mansfield Ch. J. The ci seem to have settled it. The other judges concurring, on ill' removal to Hedsor quashed. Cald. Cat. 51.

So in the K. v. Nympsficld, Uil. IV Geo. 3, the pauper jng hired for a year, as gamekeeper to lord Vucie, in the rish of U'oodchester, towards the latter e»d of his service, a ried a woman who resided with her father in the parish jAvenivg : after this he lay at Avening the greatest part of last 80 days before the expiration of his year, and the titin his,quitting his service, without the privity or consent of

« PreviousContinue »