six months, when she left her mistress. She was removed by the order of two justices from Thames Ditton to Chelsea, as having served the last 40 days in that parish, and the sessions on appeal quashed that order. Against the order of sessions and in support of the order of removal, it was contended, that although the term used in the statute was hiring, and the contract in this case was a purchase, yet the meaning was in substance the same, and that if this pauper had gained no settlement, it would follow that all negroes could be maintained only as casual poor, and in that character they certainly would not be so well taken care of.-By lord Mansfield. This case does not admit of an argument. The Poor Law is a system of many acts of parliament. To give this pauper a settlement, she must come within the description of a positive law. Her being black or a slave is no objection, but the statutes require a hiring; there is none here; and therefore the case is not within the statute.-Order of sessions confirmed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 330. Caldecot's Cases, 516.

The residing with a relation upon an invitation to come and live with him, and performing the work of a servant with such relation for several years, is not sufficient to gain a settlement, the service not being under any hiring. This was decided in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Stokesly, Tr. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, which was as follows. An order for the removal of a pauper and his family, from Wylan to Stokesly, was on appeal confirmed by the sessions, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: the pauper, who was illegitimate, was born at Little Wiltington; and after his mother's death, which happened when he was about six years old, he went to fire with her brother at Mordon, as a relation, and not under amy hiring; his said uncle farmed about 401. a year, and set him to drive his plough, the first or second day after he weat to Mordon: and he continued working at the farm for the space of about eight years, but received no wages or any other reward during that time, except meat and clothes; and he and his said uncle wrought all the work of the farm during the last three or four years of that period. The pauper having some words with his uncle, shortly before May Day went to Darlington hiring, and there hired himself to a person of Aircy 'Holm, to be a servant in husbandry for one year; and he * served the same at Aircy Holm aforesaid accordingly.' Shortly before the expiration of service at Aircy Holm, he receiv ed a letter from his uncle requesting his return to Mordon, and saying, that if he would come and live with him as before, he (his uncle) could surely make it as good, or better for him than a common service. During the year the pauper served at Airey Holm, his uncle had no regular hired servant, but enployed an elderly man as a labourer, to lead his lime and manure, thrash his corn, and do such other work about his farm, as he did not like to do himself; and which the pauper used regularly, year after year, as he grew in strength, to do for him.

Agreeably to his uncle's request, he returned to him at Mordon as soon as he left his service at Aircy Holm, and lived with him there about three years, at the expiration of which he went with his uncle to Stokesly, and lived with him there about four years and a half; during all which time he performed the greatest part of the work of the farm, as his uncle at that time kept no other servant, and was himself an elderly and infirm man. When the pauper returned home from Aircy Holm to Mordon, he made no agreement with his uncle, either for what time or for what consideration he should serve him; but his uncle often promised him, if he would stay with him for his life, he would leave him his stock and crop, and farm, as his own, his uncle's son having got a good place, and being otherwise well provided for; and his uncle of course found him meat and clothes, and used to give him a few shillings when he went to market, o from home, but nothing more. The pauper left his uncl about the Martinmas time, or a little after, and believed him self at liberty to leave him at any time. Immediately after wards he married, and has not gained any settlement since At the time the pauper and his uncle parted, they had no reck oning, and did not part friends. In support of the order, i was argued that "the pauper having performed all the office "of a servant for so long a time, though without wages "the court would be warranted in raising the implication of "general hiring."-But by lord Kenyon, Ch. J. This arg ment might have had a good effect, if addressed to the court quarter sessions; but it cannot have any weight here, b cause the facts stated in the case negative any hiring; inde that argument applies as well to the first as to the secon service; and the justices have expressly said that there w no hiring during the first service; they also state that befo the pauper returned to his uncle, the latter proposed to him come and live with him as before, that is, in the same relatio This excludes the idea of any hiring for a year. I do n wish to break in upon those cases where it has been termined that a general hiring is a hiring for a year, that a hiring under certain circumstances may be presume and if the justices had in this case found that there w a yearly hiring, it would have concluded the case. here they have expressly found that "the first service was n "under any hiring," and that the SECOND was as befor and we cannot contradict these facts, and introduce own conjectures on the subject, in opposition to this finding BY THE COURT, order of sessions quashed. 6 Term Rep. 7

So in the K. v. St. Mary, Guilford, Ea. 25 Geo. 3, wh a boy at the age of 11 went to live with his uncle, a taylor South Mins, and continued to live with him, working in learning his business till about the age of seventeen, being p vided with board, lodging, and necessaries-THE COURT a hiring was certainly necessary, and that this was clearly settlement in South Mins. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 332. cot's Cases, 521.

Ca

So in the K. v. St. Matthew, Ipswich, Mich. 30 Geo. 3. About five years ago, the waiter belonging to an inn in St. Matthews, being ill, sent for the pauper to assist him at the inn, where he staid as helper to the waiter about six months and then went away. The waiter being again taken ill, sent for the pauper to help him, which he did; and he continued in the inn as boot.catcher for nineteen months, during which 'time he lodged and boarded there,' and was to be satisfied by the gentlemen who came to the house. The master of the 'inn knew of his being there the night after he came,' but no. thing passed between him and the pauper at the time. The waiter who sent for the pauper continued in the service of the master of the inn till about July in the next year, when he went away, and the pauper continued there till the Christmas fodowing; when the master of the inn and the pauper having some dispute, the former told him to go away, upon which he asked the master to give him something for the time he had been there. He the master replied he should not, as he made no agreement with him: but on being pressed again to consider his situation, he not having any thing to help himself, he gave hin two guineas and sent him away: the pauper then left the house. The pauper considered himself not as a servant to the master, but as assistant to the waiter, and thought himself at liberty to go away when he pleased; he saw the master sometimes, who, if a guest wanted his boots, told the pauper to get them, and at other times sent him on errands. It was contended, that the pauper gained a settlement in St. Matthew's by serving nineteen months under an hiring with the master of the inn: for though there was no personal communication between them, yet that the waiter might be considered as the agent of his master in this respect, and that then sufficient appeared to shew, that there was a general hiring, under which the pauper might gain a settlement. That the circumstance of the master's knowing that the pauper was in his service on the second day, amounted to a confirmation of the act of his ageat; and the wages are not necessary to confer a settlement: that even if it were doubtful whether the pauper was to be considered at first merely as an assistant to the waiter, yet for the last six months he must necessarily have been the servant of the master (the waiter being then gone); and as he continued in the same service after the waiter went as before, without making any new agreement, the latter service was a strong presumption of a general hiring from the begiuning. By lord Kenyon Ch. J. I agree that there is no necessity for an hiring by the master himself: that if there be an hiring, it shall be presumed to be an hiring for a year, unless something appear to shew that the contrary was intended: and that wages are not necessary to confer a settlement on the servant. But the foundation of the argument here is, that the pauper was the servant of the master of the inn; now that is expressly negatived by the facts of the case. For it is stated

General bir2015.

that the waiter being ill sent for the pauper, who went a helper to the waiter; and, after staying there six months, wen away: and that the waiter being afterwards taken ill again sent for the pauper, who went a second time to perform the business for the waiter: here therefore the question arises upo the determination of which this case must turn : In what si tuation was the pauper at that time? The case states, that h came there as helper to the waiter; and there is nothing i the case from whence we can infer that he was the servant o the master of the inn. Therefore down to the time when th waiter went away, it is impossible to say that there was any agree ment between the inn-keeper and the pauper. It is true, the we cannot refer the last six months of the pauper's service any thing but a contract with the innkeeper; but that is no sufficient to give a settlement.' If, indeed, the pauper had bee before in the inn-keeper's service, and had then lived unde 'a yearly hiring,' making in the whole a year's service, the would have gained him a settlement; but here was no co tract with the inn-keeper either express or implied until th last six months.' In cases where the nature of the servi implies an hiring, the court will raise such implication; bu the nature of the service here implies the reverse. Small ci cumstances have indeed been held sufficient to raise a contrac as where the master told the pauper to go into Ned Hill place," it appearing that Ned Hill had lived there as a year servant; but it is to be observed, that in that case there w some conversation between the master and the servant respecti the contract; but here there was none. 3 Term Rep. 449.

But if there be a hiring, although it be general, yet that sufficient; for it shall be deemed to be a hiring for a yea Thus in Wandsworth v. Putney, En. 13 Geo. 2,a boy came to li with a gentleman without any hiring, and in about six weeks two months after his first coming, his master told him that if staid a year, and behaved himself well, the next year he wou give him a full livery and wages; he lived there a year and fo months afterwards, and received one guinea and an half wag The court inclined to think that this was a conditional hirit and that the boy's service was an assent in fact, and that gained a settlement, but referred the matter back to the s sions to be more fully stated *. 2 Sess. Cas. 188.

So in the K. v. Wincanton, Hil. 24 Geo, 2, the pauper b ing settled at Wincanton at the age of 17, went to one II liams of Charleton Horethorne, and offered to serve hi Williams liking him, hired him to serve him in husbandry, & agreed to give him meat, drink, washing, and lodging, a clothes when wanted; but no particular time was agreed o and the pauper apprehended his master might turn him or he might have gone away from him, at their pleasure; nev theless, there was no agreement for that purpose; that the npon the pauper continued with and served Williams in Cha

*This case is very fully reported in 2 Bott, Const's ed. p. 335.

ten Horethorne aforesaid for two years and a half. By Lee, Ch. J. and the Court. It is agreed that a general hiring is a ⚫ hiring for a year: therefore the only question is, Whether the circumstances of this case shew an intention to the contrary? The apprehension of the pauper is stated indeed to have been to the contrary; but it is also stated, that there was no agree ment for that purpose. His lordship said, he did not see any circumstances to vary it from the general rule, which has been and must be agreed. Burrows's Sett. Cas. 674.

So in the K. v. Berwick St. John, Ea. 33 Geo. 2, the panper being settled at Hanley, happening to meet the headkeeper of Rushmore Lodge in Berwick St. John, and who had then lately parted with a person who had been for many years one of his servants or under keepers at the wages of 31. a year, and a keeper's livery besides meat, drink, and lodging; the said head keeper addressed the pauper in these words, "Do you like the life of a keeper?" which being answered in the alfirmative, he said further, "Then go into Ned Hill's place; “and you shall want no encouragement:" The paper, without further conversation, went immediately into the said service, and continued therein three years, during which time he was furnished with a keeper's livery; and with meat, drink, and lodging, and at the end was paid 9. for his service.---By lord Mansfield, and the court. This man served three years, and received three years wages; but it is objected that he was never hired at all. It is admitted, that if he was hired at all, it would by law be a hiring for a year. And upon this dialogue, stated in the order of sessions, it is a clear hiring; for Hill was a hired servant. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 502.

So in the K. v. Stockbridge, Mich. 14 Geo. 3, the pauper being settled at Stockbridge, was hired to one Nicholas of the parish of Wanston, to serve him as a boot-catcher, and occationally as a post chaise driver, no term for which he was to serve being mentioned; he accordingly went into the service, and continued in it for one year; and was during that time, found by his master in meat, drink, and lodging there, but re ceived no wages for such service. At the end of the year the pauper quitted Nicholas, and was afterwards sent for by one Watts an innkeeper of Basingstoke, who wanted a driver. The pauper saying he should be glad to serve him, was ordered by Watts to take care of his horses, and not to drive them too hard, but no terms were mentioned. The pauper served him as a postillion for a year in Busingstoke; being found by him in meat, drink, and lodging there; but received no wages: the pauper thought he was at liberty to leave either of the said masters whenever he pleas ed, and it was proved by several witnesses, that the customary manner of engaging postillions is as above, and that the masters and postillions think themselves at liberty to part whenever they please.-BY THE COURT. Ageneral indefinite hiring is a hiring for a year,unless something appears that may raise a presumption to the contrary. Now, here is enough stated to shew a generalinde.