« PreviousContinue »
Far Ibis man is not married ; neither has he any child or chil. dren to the purpose intended by the act, rts. that can be chargeable. It was therefore held, that this widower was a person who might gain a settlement by virtue of hiring and service. Foriticue, 309. Foley 131.
Bit a widower having a son, who has no settlement of his own, cannot pain a settlement by hiring and serf ire for a year though the son lie hired for a year on (he same day when (he fatier is hireil. and serve (hat year.—Thus in the K. v. New Forest, 34 Geo. 3 a widower hired himself for a year in the township of New Forest, and served a year there accordingly; and on ihe same day that he so hired himself, his son, then about sixteen years of age, and having gained no previous settlement in his own right, hired himself for a year in the town, skip of Ellerton, which he served accordingly. It was contended, that though (he father had a son, who was not emanci. patedat the time when he was hired, yet that as the son was alto hired on the same day with the father, the settlement which tbc too acquired by (he service under that-hiring, might have idationha.k to the first day of the service: and in that way of considering the question, the father might be deemed to be an Bnoiarricd man, not having child or children at the time when he was hired in New Forest.—Biit by lord Keni/on, Ch. J. and the Court. It is impossible to support the orders. The con. struction which the court has put upon the slatutc of Will, and Mar. is, that though the persons hired have children, yet if have gained settlements for themselves, distinct from the ,thc statute will nut prevent him acquiring a settlement a year uuder that hiring; but in (his case the son separated from the father, when the taller was hired he no settlement for himself: the son indeed did on the niter into a contract, w hich might or might not have apleted ; and which when completed, would confer a settlement on the son; but at (he time when the father entered inio the relation of servant at ]\ctc Forett, the sou formed a part of his family. 5 Term Rep. 478.
And a pauper placed by the parish with a parishioner, upon an agreement between the latter and the parish officers, to find 'hoard, wa'hiog, and lodging for the pin per at so much per week, tad that the pauper was to do w hat he was set about, dot s not constitute the relation of master and servant between each parishioner and the pauper, so as to emble the latin lo gain a settlement, a.s by hiii.it: and scrvirr, l.n tin- relation aastcr and servant does not in such case exist : it is a men- i outlet with the pari-li officers fur the maintenance of the pauper, i have no authority to hire him out to another; and the ice. with the party afd-r the parish allowance is withdrawn, without any contract as betw ecu mas'c-r and sirv,i".t. will : coti.-idwred as * uvift'-r of rharitv. '7 V K. v. !i> >; Vi". Eu. Ttr. JO 0\-o. 3. j'Ter.Rep. J" 3 i
If a married man agree conditionally tq become the servant of another, and before a definitive agreement takes plauof the wife dies without issue, he will paui a settlement bjc^j luring and service for a year—Thus in the K. v. Bank freieton,^ Ea. 31 Geo. 2, the pamper, who was a married man, and settled at Bank AV—fen. on the ?6th of February agreed with thr \oaA of Henri) U'ilcor.k of Marfan, to serve the said Henry J^tlcock\ for a vrar, from the '21th of the same month of February atj lire guineas wages, in case the said Henry Wilcock should Of - , prove the said terms; tiro days afterwards, viz. on the lSthj of the same month of Ftbruary, the pauper's wife died without issue. And on the "24th of the same month of February, the. « pauper, then having neither rcife nor child, went to Henry IfiU , cock in Mut ton, who asked him " Upon what terms his son and
he (the pauper) had agreed;" the pauper stated the terms as abave, and Wilcock thereupon said, " That he did agree to the "same terms." The pauper accordingly, on the said 2-Jth of February, then having neither wife nor child, entered into the service of Wilcock, and served him in Marion aforesaid for a year. It was objected, that the hiring was on the 16th, a;:d 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 an. swered, that the contract was not complete, but a mere nullity till the assent of the principal (the father) : for he had it in hit 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 (hat the hiring was on the 24th; for the father might h^ve dissented from the conditional agreet: cit made, by his son on the 16th. And the man was unmarried 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 w as consequently held to be in Marlon, by virtue of this hiring and service there. Burrow'i Sett. Cos. 455.
And a marriage after the hiring, and during the service, will not prevent the servant from training a seuleL.ent-—Thus in Farringdon v. Witty, 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 M= i complaint ol the master, yet without that, and upo:i complaint of the officers only, it could not be dissolved.— And by The Cockt. The marriage does not hinder the service, the contract continues, and if the man performs his service, he gains a stttlsr mcnt. 2 Salk. 527.
So in the if. r. Clent, Mic. I Geo. I, the court held, that thr ring for a j ear, and service for that whole year, though the servant marry before the year is out, will gain him a settlement. Foley, 14S.
So also Id the A', T. Sutton, Mic. 1 Geo. i, an unmarried person having sorted a year, hut in the intermediate time mar* ried—Tni Court held it good, and to be unmarried at the tints of hiring, it the only Iking necessary, in order to get a tettlemeat iy the service, and that the service is uot dissolved by the marriage. 2 Sets. Cat. 133.
So alio in the K. v. Allendale, Tr. 29 Geo. 3, in February I'M, the pauper being then an unmarried man, not having child or children, was hired fat a year toa person at Allendale. It wisin the contemplation of both the. master and the servant, afid perfectly understood by them, at the time of hiring, that the paaper would marry before he enter»d upon his service. Aftor tuchhirmg, and before the commencement of the s-rvice, he mi!rial hi, wife, the other pauper, and entered upon his service a married man, and served out the whole year a married mart it Allendale.—It was contended, that the statute meant tn restrain those persons alio were married at the time of entering into theierzice, from bringing a charge upon thu parish; and that the time when the service commences (not the time of the »iriag) is the < riterion by which the court is guided in determin. <n* whether or not the case comes within the statute.—But by Ktr.yon Ch. J. This question has been long settled. And '1* pauper in the present case gained a settlement by hiring and wvfce at Allendale ; for though he married betore the service fenced, yet he was unmarried when he entered into his (attract; and whether he married the day before the service (onssested, or six months afterwards, it makes no difference.' The bffie to be attended to, is the lim« when the contract it "iade: and that has long been considered as the rule. 3 Term
And the marriage of the servant during the time of service, •» s* sufficient cause for his discharge—For in the K. v. Hon. Airry, Tr. 26 & 27 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired for a year in ''■'anbury, served three quarters, and then married. Of this bit master complained toa justice of peace. The justice thought the matter complained of to be a sufficient cause fur the pauper's knag discharged; and allowed of his discharge; but made no brder fa writing touching the matter. The master thereupon discharged him. against his, the pauper's consent.—Jjce, Ch. *• said, the great question was upon the cause of discharge, Whether that was sufficient ?—Wright J. thought there was But any reasonable cause; for what objection is the marriage? 1'iso > misdemeanor; and the justice cannot discharge but for a Bustenxanor.—Dennitoa and Foster Justices. He cannot be thus discharged against hit oun consent. Consequently the setL'eruau jn H anbury gu»* on, and is his last legal settlement. Ban.,: Sea. (Jot. 322.
A wire whose husband is abroad hiring herself before his
Vol.. IV. li
death, and continuing in serTice under such hiring for a y
after his death, will tain a settlement, although the busbai
death was not known to the parties till after the year comni
ccd—for in the K. v. flcnsingham, Tr. '22 Geo. :i, the pau
being married to, and having a child, by a mariner then o
voyage at sea, hired hecself as a servant, and continued B:
than a year in service under this hiring, during trrW'cA time
child (tied. At Whitsuntide, 1774, her luisbanl being (
living, the pauper entered a new hiring and service, with
mistress, and continued in service under this contract I
Whitsuntide. 1776. In August 1775, she received notice
her husband died on the 10\h of Jpril preceding.—Tub Caj
held, that she gained a .settlement under this hiring and
vice; for that the service entered upon in the second j
while in a capacity to acquire a settlement, though without
new contract, and referable only to the former contract < i
ed into wheu she was not in a capacity to acquire a settlemer
sufficient if completed to give a settlement, even though suri
pacity was unknown to both parties at the time the se
service or new contract was entered into. Galdecot's Cases,
And although the hiring be to a parent, it is not mat
for in Jtssop v. Missendea, Tr. 13 Ann, the pauper had gi
a settlement iu Jessop, and afterwards came and lived wit
lather for ayear as a hired servant, in a little cottage upoi
waste in Missenden for 10*. a-year, besides what she coul
by her extra service and labour. The question therefore
Whether she gained a settlement in Missenden f—And
Whole Court held she did : for there is no ground of I
for it was to live with her father who might be grout
Concerning An hiring for a year cannot be intended unless there
the hiring. contract between the parties, as master nnd servant—Tl
the K. v. Walton, Ea. 9 Will. 1, a gentleman sent his fn
to a barber who lived in Chesterfield, for one year, to It!
shave: and the barber was to have the behelit of the
work; the boy accordingly lived with the barber in the said
.one year; and the question was, if this made a settleuv
the boy in Chestt-yield as an hired servant ?<— By The C
This is not such a hiring or such a scrvkeAs is within
tent of the statute; because here was no reciprocal cc
between the boy and the barber, and he had no remedy t<
pel him to serve : for every hiring within that statute tiv
reciprocal; but here the boy was in nature of a scholar a
of a servant. Cur/hezc, 400.
So in Gregory Stoke v. Pitminslcr, Mic. 13.Geo. \\ pauper, who was a young girl, was sent to by a relation told her, that if she would live, with her she should Jia meat, drink, wasjyng, and lodging. The girl accepted the and lived with her four years as a servant. It was v that the girl gained a settlement within the statute—.U Couiit held, that there must be an actual contract} «s
Tint is under no obligation to stay, and the contract must be mutual to bind the parties ; this is no agreement; but an en. couragemeot to the poor girl, that if she would lire with the relation she would maintain her. 1 Sess. Cas. 120. 2 Bolt, Gm-'f * ed. 326.
Bot it waj observed by the Court, in the case of the K. r. /. . '•.. Tr. 3 3 Geo. 3 *, that in this case of Gregory Stoke r. Pitmimter, 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 uf charity ; and that she only lived with her at a relation, and not as & servant—How. ever, the general authority of the case, even under its own particular circumstances, seems to have been considerably sha. keo by the determination of the court in the case of the K. T. lie Jnhaiitan/s oj fVorfield, 7/(7. 34 Geo, 3, and particular, ly by what fell from lord Kenyon. in that case.—It appeared that the pauper, who was born in IVorfuld where her father was legally settled, went to lire with a person \\\.St. Leonard?sy Bridgnorth, and served him near a year, but was not hired, at she knew o(. While she lived in this service, another person of St. Leonard met with her, and taking her into his house, a ked her if she were hired again to the master she was then with? tomhich she answered that she was not: he then asked her if she tronid 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 scrvice,he told her he would and her meat, drink, and clothes, and asked if she would be saustied 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 uot now to be controverted; in my opinion, the Airra$ in this case was a hiring for a year. The circumstance o( the pauper's going a way in the middle of a year, does 'aw that this hiring was not of such a description; for ir was competent to both parties to put an end to the contract w hen, ever 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 retpect to the case of Gregory Stoke v. Pit. matter (mentioned' in the argument), it was determined early » the reign of George the Second, when these questions were discussed or understood to well as they are at present.— The circumstances of this case shew that the parties thisshould be a hiring for a year; the pauper uas ttith clothes in lieu of zsages; now, if she had been
S Term RtP. 328, 329, and Xelan's Rep. 252.