Page images
PDF
EPUB

If a married man agree conditionally to become the servant of another, and before a definitive agreement takes place the wife dies without issue, he will gain a settlement by a hiring and service for a year-Thus in the K. v. Bank Newton, Ea. 31 Geo. 2, the paper, who was a married man, and settled at Bank Newton, on the 16th of February agreed with the son of Henry Wilcock of Marton, to serve the said Henry Wilcock for a year, from the 24th of the same month of February, at five guineas wages, in case the said Henry Wilcock should approve the said terms; two days afterwards, viz. on the 18th of the same month of February, the pauper's wife died without issue. And on the 24th of the same month of February, the pauper, then having neither wife nor child, went to Lienry Wilcock in Marton, who asked him "Upon what terms his son and

he (the pauper) had agreed ;" the pauper stated the terms as abore, and Wilcock thereupon said, "That he did agree to the (6 same terms." The pauper accordingly, on the said 24th of February, then having neither wife nor child, entered into the service of Wilcock, and served him in Marton aforesaid for a year. It was objected, that the hiring was on the 16th, and the wife did not die till the 18th; so that the pauper was not an unmarried person when he was hired. To this it was answered, that the contract was not complete, but a mere nullity till the assent of the principal (the father): for he had it in his power to disapprove. It was not binding till his assent was given; for the agent only acted under a limited authority. And when the principal did assent, the servant was unmarried.—By Lord Mansfield. It is clear that the hiring was on the 24th; for the father might have dissented from the conditional agreement made by his son on the 16th. And the man was unmar. ried on the 24th, when the father made the complete agreement with him.—The three other judges declaring themselves to be of the same opinion, the settlement of the pauper was consequently held to be in Marton, by virtue of this hiring and service there. Burrow's Seit. Cas. 455.

And a marriage after the hiring, and during the service, will not prevent the servant from gaining a settlement--Thus in Farringdon v. Wilty, Ea. 1 Ann, a servant hired for a year, served half a year of the time, and married.—The question was, First. Whether the churchwardens could make an order to remove him to the place of his last legal settlement? Secondly. Whether his serving here would not gain a settlement? To the first point it was admitted, that the contract between the master and servant was not dissolved by the marriage; and that admitting it might be dissolved by an order made on complaint of the master, yet without that, and upon complaint of the officers only, it could not be dissolved. And by THE COURT. The marriage does not hinder the service, the contract continues, and if the man performs his service, he gains a settlement. 2 Salk. 527.

[merged small][ocr errors]

3

So in the K. v. Clent, Mic. 1 Geo. 1, the court held, that the biring for a year, and service for that whole year, though the servant marry before the year is out, will gain him a settlement. Foley, 148.

So also in the K. v. Sutton, Mic. 1 Geo. 2, an unmarried person having served a year, but in the intermediate time márried-Tar Couar held it good, and to be unmarried at the time of hiring, is the only thing necessary, in order to get a settlement by the service, and that the service is not dissolved by the marriage. 2 Sess. Cas. 133.

So also in the K. v. Allendale, Tr. 29 Geo. 3, in February 1786, the pauper being then an unmarried man, not having child or children, was hired for a year to a person at Allendale. It wasin the contemplation of both the master and the servant, and perfectly understood by them, at the time of hiring, that the pauper would marry before he entered upon his service. After sach hiring, and before the commencement of the service, he married his wife, the other pauper, and entered upon his service riedan, and served out the whole year a married man at Allendale.-It was contended, that the statute meant to res persons who were married at the time of entering

train those

into the service, from bringing a charge upon the parish; and that the time when the service commences (not the time of the ring) is the criterion by which the court is guided in determinng whether or not the case comes within the statute.-But by Kengon Ch. J. This question has been long settled. And the paper in the present case gained a settlement by hiring and ice at Allendale; for though he married before the service commenced, yet he was unmarried when he entered into his continet; and whether he married the day before the service coed, or six months afterwards, it makes no difference.

The fine to be attended to, is the time when the contract is made and that has long been considered as the rule. 3 Term

[ocr errors]

And the marriage of the servant during the time of service, ficient cause for his discharge-For in the K. v. HanTr. 26 & 27 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired for a year in ary, served three quarters, and then married. Of this master complained to a justice of peace. The justice thought ter complained of to be a sufficient cause for the pauper's discharged; and allowed of his discharge; but made no in writing touching the matter. The master thereupon charged him, against his, the pauper's consent.-Lee, Ch. the great question was tipon the cause of discharge, that was sufficient?-Wright J. thought there was y reasonable cause; for what objection is the marriage? I misdemeanor; and the justice cannot discharge but for emeanor-Dennison and Foster Justices. He cannot be Encharged against his own consent. Consequently the setHanbury goes on, and is his last legal settlement.

Barron's Sett. Cas. 322.

Ae whose husband is abroad hiring herself before his

VOL. IV.

H

Concerning the hiring.

death, and continuing in service under such hiring for a yea after his death, will gain a settlement, although the husband' death was not known to the parties till after the year commen ced-for in the K. v. Hensingham, Tr. 22 Geo. 5, the paupe being married to, and having a child, by a mariner then on voyage at sea, hired herself as a servant, and continued mo than a year in service under this hiring, during which time he child died. At Whitsuntide, 1774, her husband being the living, the pauper entered a new hiring and service with h mistress, and continued in service under this contract un Whitsuntide, 1776. In August 1775, she received notice th her husband died on the 10th of April preceding.-THE COU held, that she gained a settlement under this hiring and s vice; for that the service entered upon in the second ye while in a capacity to acquire a settlement, though without a new contract, and referable only to the former contract ent ed into when she was not in a capacity to acquire a settlement sufficient if completed to give a settlement, even though such pacity was unknown to both parties at the time the sec service or new contract was entered into. Caldecot's Cuses,

And although the hiring be to a parent, it is not mater for in Jessop v. Missenden, Tr. 13 Ann, the pauper had gai a settlement iu Jessop, and afterwards came and lived with father for a year as a hired servant, in a little cottage upon waste in Missenden for 10s. a-year, besides what she could by her extra service and labour. The question therefore Whether she gained a settlement in Missenden ?—And WHOLE Court held she did; for there is no ground of fr for it was to live with her father who might be grown Foley 142.

An hiring for a year cannot be intended unless there contract between the parties, as master and servant-Th the K. v. Walton, Ea. 9 Will. 2, a gentleman sent his foo to a barber who lived in Chesterfield, for one year, to lea shave: and the barber was to have the benefit of the work; the boy accordingly lived with the barber in the said p one year; and the question was, if this made a settleme the boy in Chesterfield as an hired servant?-BY THE C This is not such a hiring or such a service as is within t tent of the statute; because here was no reciprocal co between the boy and the barber, and he had no remedy to pel him to serve : for every hiring within that statute my reciprocal; but here the boy was in nature of a scholar a of a servant. Carthew, 400.

So in Gregory Stoke. Pitminster, Mic. 13. Geo. 1. pauper, who was a young girl, was sent to by a relation told her, that if she would live with her she should hay meat, drink, washing, and lodging. The girl accepted the and lived with her four years as a servant. It was i that the girl gained a settlement within the statute-B COURT held, that there must be an actual contract, as

rant is under no obligation to stay, and the contract must be mutual to bind the parties; this is no agreement; but an encouragement to the poor girl, that if she would live with the relation she would maintain her. 2 Sess. Cas. 120. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 326.

But it was observed by the Court, in the case of the K. v. Lyth, Tr. 33 Geo. 3*, that in this case of Gregory Stoke v. Pitminster, the presumption of a hiring was destroyed by the peculiar circumstances of the case, it appearing thereby that the grand-mother took the pauper out of charity; and that she only lived with her as a relation, and not as a servant-How. ever, the general authority of the case, even under its own particular circumstances, seems to have been considerably shaken by the determination of the court in the case of the K. v. The Inhabitants of Worfield, Hil. 34 Geo. 3, and particular. ly by what fell from lord Kenyon, in that case.-It appeared that the pauper, who was born in Worfield where her father was legally settled, went to live with a person in St. Leonard's, Bridgnorth, and served him near a year, but was not hired, as she knew of. While she lived in this service, another person of St. Leonard met with her, and taking her into his house, asked her if she were hired again to the master she was then with? to which she answered that she was not: he then asked her if she would come and live with him, and take care of his child, to which she consented; she soon afterwards went to him; and two or three days after she had been in his service, he told her he would find her meat, drink, and clothes, and asked if she would be satisfied with that; she told him she should, and she accordingly lived with him about two years and an half, when her mistress told her that her child was then old enough not to require any further attendance, and dismissed her. By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. It has been so long settled that a general hiring is a hiring for a year, that it ought not now to be controverted; in my opinion, the hiring in this case was a hiring for a year. The circumstance of the pauper's going a way in the middle of a year, does not show that this hiring was not of such a description; for it was competent to both parties to put an end to the contract whenever they pleased: and here they did dissolve it in the middle of the year. "It is much to be wished, that in cases of this "kind, the justices at the sessions would draw the conclusion, "and state it as a fact whether or not there was a hiring for a "year." With respect to the case of Gregory Stoke v. Pitminster (mentioned in the argument), it was determined early in the reign of George the Second, when these questions were not discussed or understood so well as they are at present.Ashhurst J. The circumstances of this case shew that the parties intended that this should be a hiring for a year; the pauper was to be provided with clothes in lieu of wages; now, if she had been

See 5 Term Rep. 328, 329, and Nolan's Rep. 252.

[ocr errors]

clothed the day after she went into the service, could it have been the intention of the parties, that she might hare left the service immediately? if not the next day, what other line can be drawn? This shews that both parties meant that the service should be permanent, and that it should not be in the power of the pauper to leave the service when she pleased This, then, was a general hiring, which the law construes to b for a year.-Buller and Grose Justices assenting –Order of re moval to Worfield, quashed. 5 Term Rep. 556.

So in the K. v. Weyhill, Hil. 32 Geo. 2, it appeared o the evidence of the pauper, (the only witness produced o either side), that about the year 1719, and when the paup was about 8 years of age,one Robert Pyke, Esq. took him in his family, from charity, and gave him his meat, drink, lod ing, and clothes, while he continued with him, which was abo two years in the parish of Worth Matraverse,and afterwards fo years more in the parish of Weyhill; that neitherat nor before time of the said Pyke's taking the pauper into his family nor any time after was there any contract between the said part in relation to the pauper's service of the said Mr. Pyke, or continuance with him, or to any wages or other gratuity to paid him that during the pauper's continuance with the s Mr. Pyke, he was employed in running of errands and do whatsoever the said Mr. Pyke or his servants thought fit to him that no wages were ever paid or given him; and that the pauper's apprehension, he was, during all the time af said,at liberty to quit the said Mr. Pyke, or the said Mr. Pyk turn him off,as either party should think fit. The sessions wer opinion, "That, at this distance of time, a hiring for a year o "to be presumed;" and therefore confirmed the order of rem to Weyhill. It was moved to quash these orders, and the c were clear that this was no hiring at all, no contract; bu was taken out of charity, a child eight years old, to run errands, and do whatever he was bid; and left Mr. Pyke v he came to be fourteen, and capable of doing more ser And it is expressly stated, that there was no contract. where there is a hiring stated, the court will presugie have been a regular one (uuless the contrary appears) here was no hiring at all.-Both orders quashed. Burr Sett. Cus. 491.

Ind

So in the K. v. Thames Ditton, Ea. 25 Geo. 3, the p was bought in America us a negro slave, and in the year her master brought her to England; in the month of N ber, in the same year, her master went to live at 77 Dition, and took the pauper with him; she continued t with him as his servant till June 1783, when he died; after the death of her master, she was baptized at Thame ton, and she continued after his death to live with his and executrix, who afterwards removed to Chelsea; at place the pauper continued to live withher as before f

« PreviousContinue »