Page images
PDF
EPUB

his father, but continued in the parish of Ampthill, where his father lived before.' The pauper ceased to be a part of his father's family upon his marrying and living separate and distinct from his father.-Foster J. concurred: both the orders were quashed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 270.

And the marriage of a son without more, is an emancipation from the family of the parent, although he continue to live with the father, and take his fare at the same board with himThis was decided in the K. v. Everton, Tr. Ter. 41 Geo. 3, which was as follows: "the father of the pauper was settled "at Everton in 1782, the pauper being 22 years of age mar ried his first wife: the pauper and his wife lived in the family "of the father and as a part thereof, until her death in 1783. "The pauper continued with him after the death of his wife, "and in the year 1790 removed with his father to Great Bur "ford, where the father afterwards gained a settlement in April "1796; the pauper who still continued with his father married a "second wife, by whom he had the children removed by the order "and the pauper had gained no settlement in his own right: the "sessions were of opinion that the pauper was emancipated

from the family of his father, by his first marriage. ANDŢII "COURT held that although the pauper lived locally and per "sonally in the same house with his father, and took his far

at the same board with him, yet that did not constitut "him in point of law, one of his father's family, under such ci "cumstances as after his marriage he would follow a new ly acquired settlement of the father." 1 East's Rep. 526. So if a son enlist himself as a soldier, he thereby ema cipates himself from his father's family, and the father ca not communicate to him any new settlement that he ma subsequently gain.-The K. v. Walpole St. Peter's, Ea. 9 Ge 3. The pauper being settled at Outwell as part of his fa ther's family, listed himself for a soldier, and continued the service four years, when he received his discharge; afte his discharge he came home to his father, who had remo cd from Outwell, and then lived at Walpole, renting and occ pying there a farm of about 50l. a year. He continued wi his father there about twelve or fourteen weeks, and afte wards worked at different places as a labourer, till he w removed, by order of two justices, from Wisbech to W pole. The sessions confirmed the original order. It was ther fore moved to quash both these orders; for that the pa per's legal settlement was at Outwell, which was the place his father's settlement at the time of his leaving his father's mily; and consequently, his own derivative settlement. T son, by enlisting himself for a soldier, and continuing four ye in the service, became emancipated from his father's famil and, not having gained any subsequent settlement for hims must resort to his old derivative settlement at Outwell; a could not, after such an emancipation from his father's fami gain a settlement at Walpole St. Peter's, where his father h

newly and subsequently gained a settlement, but had none there when the son left him and ceased to be part of his family. A rule to shew cause was granted, which rule was afterwards made absolute, upon an affidavit of service, without any defence.*-Both orders were quashed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 638. Bat a drimmer under age entered into the same militia in which his father was serjeant, and living with his father, the latter receiving the son's pay, is not emancipated, but settled in the parish to which the father belongs--This was decided in The K. v. Woburn, Hil. Tr. 40 Geo. 3.-The paupers were removed from Leighton Buzzard, to Woburn, and the sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: -The father of the paupers, previous to 1756, was settled in Leighton Buzzard; the pauper was born in that parish and baptized there in 1756; in 1763 'the pauper's father removed to Woburn, and gained a settle'ment there in 1774; in 1772, previous to such settlement, the 'pasper entered into the Bedfordshire militia as a drummer, 'with the consent of his father, who was then a serjeant in the same militia; the panper continued in the station" of a drammer in the said militia until he was 23 years of age, and dur*ing such time his pay was received by his father; from the time of the paper's entering into the militia, until the year 1788 when he married, he lived in his father's family, except when he and his father were absent upon duty in the militia: the C pauper had gained no settlement in his own right.' Against the order of the justices and the affirmance thereof at sessions it was contended, that the pauper was emancipated in 1772 when he entered into the militia, and consequently that his settlement was at Leighton Buzzard; and for this were cited the K.v. Valpole St. Peter's, the K. v. Ditton cum Twambrooke, and other cases. BUT BY THE COURT, it is said that the pauperceased to he part of his father's family when he entered into the militia; but it appears by the case that he was a minor at that time, that he entered with the consent of his father, who was a serjeant in

Ld. Kenyon Ch. J. in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Roach, Ea. Ter. 93 Geo. 3, said that it must not be inferred from the circumstance of the above case, not having been argued that it passed without consideration, and is not intitled to much notice; for that Mr. Justice Aston, who was a very good sessions lawyer, to the A. v. Halifax alluded to it as a case properly, decided.-Mr. Justice Lawrence in the K. v. Roach, said that in the case of the soldier, the son was intitled when he was under age, and if he had returned home before he was 21, he would have been considered as part of his father's family: or if he had quitted the army before 21, without returning home, the father might have reclaimed him, by sting out a habeas corpus; bui that it appeared from the case, that he had ained the age of 21 before he leftine army, and therefore during the time that he remained a soider, the father lost all control over him, he being of age, and the #absequent settlement gained by the father was not communicated to i. 6 Term Rep. 252, 251.

+ Rex v. Halifax, Burr. 2. C. 201. and infra 31.

the same militia, that his father received his pay, and that from the time when he first entered, until he married, he lived in his father's family, except at those times when he and his father were absent upon duty in the militia: upon this state of this case it is clear that he continued under his father's controul, and was a part of his father's family in the year 1774 : but suppose, instead of this, he had engaged to live as a servant with a farmer in the neighbourhood for six months, he would during that time have been certainly under the controul of the master, but on re. turning to his father's family he would again have become subject to his father's controul, and would not have been emancipated; so here the pauper continued to be part ofhis father's family in the year 1774, and as such the settlement gained by his father at that time was communicated to him. 8 Ter. Rep. 475.

And a certificate granted by the parish acknowledging the pau per and his wife and children to be parishioners, is conclusive between the two parishes, although the supposed wife be not the legal wife of the pauper. The K. v. Ullesthorpe, Hil. Ter.8 Ter. Rep. 465.

And a settlement gained by a father, some years after his son had left his family, and inlisted in the army, is not commu. nicated to the son...This was decided in the K. v. The Inhabitants of Stanwix, Tr. Ter. 34 Geo. 3, which was as follows: a Scotchman, who was the father of the pauper's husband, and who resided at Glasgow, became seized of a messuage or tenement in the parish of Stanwix by descent: upon this descent he went to Stanwix, and resided there for upwards of a year, thereby acquiring a settlement: before the premises descended to the father he had constantly resided in Scotland, and the son, some years before the premises descended to the father, had enlisted in the army at Glasgow, and gone as a soldier to parts beyond the seas: the son did not return till after the death of the father, and when he did so return he went to live in an adjoining parish to Stanwix, and continued there four years, but never acquired any settlement there by any act of his own: the father sold part of the premises in his life time, and devised the remainder, upon which he resided till the time of his death, of the yearly value of 27. 5s. to his wife for life, and after her death to his son, the pauper's late husband, in fee, but the son never became possessed thereof nor resided therein, having died in the life time of the mother-The sessions confirmed an order of two justices whereby the pauper and her five children were removed from the parish of St. Mary's to Stanwix.— It was argued by counsel in support of the order of sessions, that the late husband and father of the paupers were settled at Stanwix, his father's settlement there being communicated to him; for they contended, that as the father being a Scotchman had not gained any other settlement, the son would have settlement at all it this were not communicated to him; and that from necessity the son was intitled to this derivative settlement; that in all cases the child must take the father's settlement, if he have gained none for himself;' and a child

[ocr errors]

cannot be emancipated from his parents, unless such child has gained a settlement of his own; for that, until that time, the derivative settle nent of his parents is not abandoned.— But by lord Kenyon Ch. J. (stopping the counsel on other side) That means as long as the son continues a part of his father's family. But here the son was emancipated when the father acquired a settlement in Stanwix; he had ceased to be a part of his father's family for some years before, and had put himself under the control and government of others; and it is immaterial whether or not he had gained a settlement for him. self; the case where the son had enlisted as a soldier, was considered so clearly to be the case of an emancipation that it was not even argued.—Both orders quashed. 5 Term Rep.

670.

But a child is not emancipated so as to lose the benefit of any new settlement acquired by his father, until he comes of age or marries, or until he has gained a settlement in his own right, or until he has contracted a relation inconsistent with the idea of his being part of his father's family. The K. v. Witton cum Trambrookes, Tr. 29 Geo, 3.-The pauper's father was settled in Witton when the pauper was about six years old. He then went to Middlewich, where he did no act to gain a settlement, and about two years after ran away from his family; and the pauper's mother taking the pauper with her to Congleton, died in half a year, when the pauper was left in the care of a person with whom he lived at Congleton, and worked at the silk mills there; and the overseers of Witton paid his maintenance there for four years, after which the paupersupported himself till sixteen; at which time he got 3s. 6d. per week, and boarded himself where he liked. During the first part of the time he lived at Congleton he saw his father twice, at the distance of about four years, at which times his father did not give him any thing (except a pair of breeches, and two-pence halfpenny the first, and only three halfpence in money the second time). At eighteen or nineteen years of age, he went from Congleton to Sheffield, and hired himself for four years, but gained no settlement. He heard that his father had been to enquire after him at Congleton, and that he then lived at Dunham, to which place he went to see him, and was at that time twenty-three years of age, and married: it appeared that the father had made enquiry as above after the pauper from his daughter (the pauper's sister) with intent, as he said, to give him a suit of clothes, as he had done less for him than any of his children. It appeared that the father had married a second wife, and held a tenement in Dunham of-117. a year, and had lived upon it eight years when his son went to see him there as above,

* But the mere circumstance of coming of age is no emancipation. See the next case.

[ocr errors]

upon which visit he staid only one hour, and never saw his father at any time but as above. The pauper with his wife and family were removed to Witton; and the sessions upon appeal confirmed the order of removal.-In support of the order of sessions, it was attempted to be shewn that the pauper was emancipated, because after the age of eight years the pauper's father had no domicile of which the pauper could be a member. --But lord Kenyon, Ch. J. said, It was never conceived in any case that a son who was only sixteen years of age, and who had not gained any settlement in his own right, was not part of his father's family. The cases of emancipation have always been decided on the circumstances either of the son's being twentyone, or married, or having gained a settlement in his own 'right, or (as in the case of the soldier) having contracted a relation which was inconsistent with the idea of his being in 'a subordinate situation in his father's family.' Buller J. In this case the pauper remained under the power of his father the whole time. Both orders quashed. 3 Term Rep. 114.

But the mere circumstance of a son's attaining the age of twenty-one, is not an emancipation so as to prevent his having a derivative settlement,gained by his father afterwards, if the son continue to live with his father. And the son having attained the age of twenty-one,leaves his father's house and goes into service, he is thereby emancipated though such service was only temporary, and he return to his father's house.-This was decided in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Roach, Ea. Ter. 35 Geo. 3, which was as follows:-The court of quarter sessions for the county of Cornwall confirmed an order of two justices for the removal of a pauper from the parish of St. Columb Major to that of Roach, and stated the following case for the opinion of the court of King's Bench: The pauper was born in the parish of Little Colan, where her father then resided: when she was twelve years of age. her father rented some grist mills, of the value of 147. a year in the parish of Roach, and resided there with his family for several years: the pauper constantly lived with her father from her birth, and attained the age of twenty-one whilst living in Roach. When she was twenty-two years old, she was delivered of a bastard child, for the maintenance of which a bond of indemnity was given to the parish officers of Roach, and she continued still living with her father. About half a year afterwards she left her father's house, went to a farmer's in the parish of Roach, as a wet-nurse to his child, and lived there eight weeks, for which she was paid 8s. A few days after the pauper left her father's house, he removed with his family to St. Columb, where he rented some grist mills at 127. a year, and has lived thereon from that time. At the expiration of the eight weeks, the pauper quitted her service, and went to her father's in St. Columb, where she afterwards. mained, but never made any contract with him as a servant, nor gained any settlement for herself except as afore

« PreviousContinue »