« PreviousContinue »
finite hiring, which is by law a hiring for a year, and nothing i stated to contradict it, or to raise a presumption to the contrary Therefore the presumption must be, that the hiring was for year. Burroro's Selt. Cas. 759.
So in the K. v. Buth Euston, Hil. 16 Geo. 3, the pauper be ing settled at Bath Easton, went to a barber of the parisho St. John, in the town of Devizes; who engaged him as journey man barber and agreed to gire him meat, drink, and lodging but no wages, in livu of which he was to have the Christma boxes; the pauper accepted these terms ; but no precise tim was agreed on during which he should serve : the pauper entere into and continued in his service, in the parish of St. John, fo four years; but he thought himself at liberty to leave his masti when he thought proper : the pauper then left the barber, an went to Mangotsfield, and served a person (who kept a pul lic-house there) in his stable; the innkeeper agreed to find hi mcat, drink, washing, and lodging in his own house; but I was not to give him any other wages than what he might receiv as perquisites of the stables, from horses that came there; bi ro particular time was agreed on during which he shoni serve ; and the pauper apprehended that his master might hav turned him off or he might have gone away from him, at the picasures ; from the time the pauper began to serve the ini keeper to the time at which he left him was sixteen years during said time he left him several times; but from the un of his first going into the service, he was with him two yea and upwards, without leaving him at all; and at the end the sisteen years, he was with him for three years together with out interruption....The counsel who was to have shewn that th was no settlement at Mangotsfield, owned that he could n support the orders. Burrow's Set. Cuses, 823.
So in the K. v. Sealon and Beer, Ea. 24 Geo. 3, the paup being settled in Seaton and Beer went into the parish of Broa clist, and made an agrcement with a man who kept a publi house there, that he should give him one shilling a week as ! had given the other men, and the vails of the stables. At tl end of the year his mistress said to him: You have been he
a year, I will pay you.' To which the pauper answered: 5 . is no matter, I inay stay with you another year.' She sai
Very well.' And he did stay another yı ar, and then recei est what was due to him, being fire pounds four shilling There vever was any mention made of a hiring for a year, of the term for which he was to serve; and the paper appro liended that his master might have parted with hid at any tim on notice.---By Willes J. The first agreement was general be the pauper was to receive wages like a former servant. the conversation at the end of the year was an agree rent serve another year, which makes it even stronger than's of a general hiring. The general rule is, that an indefinite tur n without uny circunstance to shew that a less time toas me mi shall be considered as a hiring for a year. lo this case ti
frst conversation would amount to an indefinite hiring. The second seems to shew, that it was in the mind of both that it should be a hiring for a year. There are cases where it has been so held, against the apprehension of both.... Buller J. The apprehension of the pauper makes no difference. The first agreement would be sufficient; but on the second there can be no doabt.--.2 Bott, Con:t's ed. 452. Caldecot's Cases, 410.
So in the K. v. Chertsey, Tr. 27 Geo. 3, the pauper was bired for a year at the wages of 41. and served out that year in the parish of Chertsey. About three weeks before that service expired, her father, who was a day-labonrer, in consequence of his wife's death, came to the pauper, and applied to her to come and live with him to do the offices of a servant for a year in the parish of Thorpe, and offered her board and lodging, and tach profits as she could make by keeping fowls, and what she could card by her own labour; and if that did not produce as much as she got at her former service, her father was to make up the difference. She then, accordingly, went and lived with him in pursuance of that agrcement in the parish of Thorpe for a year and upwards, during which time she got about one gui. nes and an half by keeping fowls, and two guineas and an half by going out charing and taking in plain-work; and at the end of the year her father gave her ten shillings, as an additional recompesce for having goue out with him to reap in the harvest month.-BY THE COURT. All that is necessary to give a settlement under the statutes is, that there should be a hiring for a year and a service for a year. As to the hiring for a year, it is only necessary to read the words of the case to determine it : it states, that the pauper's father applied to her to come and live with him to do the offices of a servant for a year on certain terns, which she agreed to, and that she came accordingly, and liced zith him in pursuance of that agreement for a year. The objecdon is, that this is no hiring, because the sessions have not stated that the pauper lived as an hired servant; but there is Do occasion for the sessions to state that expressly, if it suffici. endly appear from the terms of the contract: pow, in the present case, that does appear. Then it was objected, that the cuatract was not binding: but that is not so; she was hired to do all the offices of a servant for a year. The terms of the con. tract are not such as would enable the pauper absolutely to lzare her father's service, but only to do particular work for her own benefit: she was first bound to perform all his work, and consistently with that she was at liberty to gain as much as she could earn by her own labour. This, therefore, was a good biring for a year. And as to the service, the case states, that the pauper lived with her father in pursuance of the agreement
a year. 2 Term. Rep. 37. So in the K. v. Macclesfield, Hil. 29 Geo. 3, the pauper, being settled in Wildboarclough, was hired by a button maker at Macclesfield, for eleven months, at ten guineas wages : at the end of h; eleven months, the master and the pauper settled his wages, and the master gave half a guinea orer, saying, that
he had been a good serrant, adding, “ You may as well stay. " an end in your place; the place suits you, and you suit tl “ place." The pauper's answer was, “ Very well, sir, I ha "nd objection;" and the pauper afterwards continued to fc low his master's business near three years. By lord Kenyo Ch. J. There must either be an express or an implied contra for a year, in order to give the servant a settlement, And i express hiring for eleven months will not confer a settlemer upless the sessions find that it was fraudulent, and that a yea service was intended, though ouly eleven monilis were expre: ed. Now, in this case, the first hiring for eleven months w not sufficient to coojer a settlement; but when that time elapsed, the master told the pauper, that he might as well st on an end; which, in that part of the county, means an ing finite time. This second hiring, therefore, must be consider us a general hiring, which the law construes to be an hiring / U year..dshhurst aud Gruse Justices concurred. 3 Te Rep. 76.
But if it appear that the servant was hired to work by : piece, this shall not be considered as a general hiring for a yı
-The K. v. St. Peter's in Dorchester, Mic. 4 Geo. 3, ! pauper being settled in St. Peter's, at the age of sixteen, ca to an agreement with his father-in-law, to live with him in house, and to work at his trade of it button-maker, and to paid at the rate of one penny per gross for the buttons he shou wake, deducting at the rate of 5s. a week for lois Nicat, drie washing and lodging. Under this agreement the fine per les and worked with his step-father, in the parish of The il
Trinity, four or five years.---By lord liansfield. This is ac of a workman hired to work by the piece. It is not like a of the cases where there was a hiring for a year. Hierd hiri.. in general and indefinitely, gives a presuniption of a hiring. a year, where the nature of the service and subsequent fa cuncur to render it probable that it was so meant: but the ture of the present service is quite otherwise. It is very cle in this case, that there was no hiring for a year, either expr or implici. Burrow's Set. Cas. 513.
So it it appear that the servant was hired as a wecklif bourer, it shall rot be considered as a general hiring for a y
Thus in the K. v. Il rington, Mic. 22 Gev. 2, the paup being settled in Wrington, when thirteen years of age, w into Chew Mugna, to the house of her aunt, and soon att wards went into l'inford, and worked with a cloth-work in the business of burling cloths, by a weekly hiring ur ago inent, at the weekly wages of Is. 6d. each week in the wint and 2s. cach week in the summer; and on the Suturday in a week, the master, when he paid the pauper her wages for !! week, said to her, “ that she should come the week follo: “ing;" which she accordingly did, and renewed the contr. for the week ensuing in the same method. She continued Kosk in that manner for a year and a half; but during ali il time constantly returned in the evening, and lodged at I
iunt's in Chez Magna, and also resided with her aunt there on Sundays. On the last Saturday of the said service, the pauper covenanted to serve for a year, for the wages of H. 10s. and iti mediately entered into the saill service, and continued therein with her master, in the parish of Il'inford, for eleven months next following.--- The question was, " Whether on these ** Írst birings, the girl was to be considered as a hired servant " within the acts; or whether she was to bi considered as a " weekly labourer, precedent to the hiring of her for a year?” ---By Dennison J. The hiring was for a week, the pauper lay at home, and was at home on Sundays. This was certainly as a day labourer: not as a servant in the family, and part of the family. The act of parliament plainly means a hired servant who is part of the family, wherover he lies... Poster J. A hired servant is always under the government, discipline, and coo. troal of the master, even on Sundays. But this child was not at all in this master's service, either on nights or on Sundays. --. The other judges concurring, both orders were affirmed. Barrea's Ser. Cas. 280. So in the K. v. Dedham, Mic. 10 Geo. 3. the pauper let bimself to a plumber and glazier at Dedham, at the wages of six shillingi 4-week, boardl, lodging, and rushing, suirmer and vinter. He served under that agreement for eleven months; when his master, having taken an apprentice, informed him, that he must lodge out of his house. Upon which the pauper detranded six-pence a week móre; alledging, that he would otherwise quit the service, on account of his master's having withdrawn from the original agreement. H: continued to receive the additional sum of six-pence per week till after the ex, piration of the year...-By The Court. There must be a hire ing for a year, either in law or in express worils. These words di wol express it: and here is a circumstance stated which destroys the presumption of its being a general hiring for a year; mamely, that the servaat demanded an additional six-pence a week; alledging, that he would otherwise quit the service: and the master complied; so that neither of them seem at that time to have thought the contract originally maile between them was binding for a year. · Burrow's Sell. Cas. 653.
Se in the K. v. Brodnineh, Hil. 10 Geo. 3, the pauper came to Rudtall, in the parish of Credilon, and agreed to live with him by the week, at two shillings and sis-pence'per week, and to part at a fortnight's or month's notice. The paper being aked, How long he intended to live with Ruddall. replied, he did not know, but as long as they liked. And accordingly the pauper lived with him for eight years under that agreement; receiving his wages, sometimes at the end of the werk, sometimes at the end of a fortnight, and sometimes longer, as he Wanted money. The court were clearly of opinion, that this could not be considered as a general hiring for a year. And lord Mansfield observed, that this páuper was under no obliga. tion to serve for a year; whereas, in order to gain a settlemcat, there must be an obligation upon the pauper to serve for a yea Burrow's Sett. Cas. 662.
So in the K. v. Elstack, Ilil. 25 Geo. 3, the pauper y hired to two brothers who kept house and lived together Wadsworth. She was the only female servant in the hou and did all the menial and household business. No menti was made about being hired for a year. She hired herself them at the wages of one shilling and four-pence a week, a board and lodging, for as long a time as they should want servant. When she had served seven weeks, she was paid h wages; and afterwards, when she had served two or thr months, she was paid again as she wanted them. She contin ed to live a year and five months in the service; and declare she did not think herself loose, or at liberty to go away, the end of every week, nor even at the end of every month. By lord Mansfield. A general hiring without limitation of tin is presumed to be a hiring for a year; but, like all other p sumptions, it is to be explained by circumstances; and hol good only till the contrary appears.
Wherever an intent a pears to hire for a less time, this destroys the presumption. think, enough appears in this case to shew, that a hiring for year was not intended. For, first, the contract is at the w of the master, “ for as long a time as he shall want a servant and, secondly, there is a certain time at which only the serva can be turned off'; that is, the end of a week. She could be discharged at the end of the year if it happened in the mide of a week. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 353. Caldecot's Cases, 38
So in the K. v. Newton Toney, Ea. 28 Geo. 3, the paup went into the parish of Newton Toney, to an inn-keeper thei and agreed to live with bim as ostler, at 4s. 6d. per week. ] continued with the inn-keeper as such ostler for one year a an half, and then went away, being paid his wages. He th lived elsewhere for five or six months; at the expiration which time he returned to Newton Toney, and agreed with l former master to serve him again as his ostler, as he had do before, at 4s. per week, which was about 101. 4 year; a which he received when he thought proper to ask for it. U der the latter agreement, the pauper lived one year and an ha but thought himself as a weekly servant, and at liberty to lea his service at any time.-By Ashhurst J. The pauper hiri himself as an ostler at 4s. 6d. per week, cannot be consider as a general hiring ; and if either party had chosen to dissol the contract before the expiration of a year, no action could ha been maintained by the other. With respect to the apprehensi of the pau per, it has been decided, in a variety of cases, th that cannot vary the contract.—Buller J. In the present ca the hiring is merely at so much per week. Now if there any thing in the contract to shew that the hiring was intend 10 be for a year, there a reservation of weekly wages will control that hiring. But if the payment of weekly wages bet only circumstance from which the duration of the contract is be collected, it must be taken to be only a weekly hiring. A