paper's husband was hired the day after Martinmas day, to serve till the Martinmas-day following. From the moment of the hiring he became the servant of his master, and continued in the service till Michaelmas-day. Then does the word till include the day? The former cases have decided that it does. And if it only included a part of the day, as there is no fraction of a day, the service would be complete. 1 Term Rep. 490. A retrospective biring is not to be considered as a hiring for Retrospective a year. Thus in Combe v. Westwoodhey, Hil. 5 Geo. 1, hiring. Nichaelmas-doy was on Thursday, and a person was hired upon the Saturday following to serve him the said Thursday fter Michaelmas-day, to Michaelmas following.-BY THE Cocar. It would be to make it nonsense, in contracting to serve for a time past; whereas if the word said be rejected, rest is natural enough. This therefore is not sufficient to na settlement, not being a hiring for a year, 1 Strange, 149. So also in the K. v. Westwell, Tr. Geo. 2, the pauper was bired to life with B. from six weeks after Michaelmas to the Videles following; and before his time was out, offered to Are with him for another year from that Michaelmas day, if he wald give him four pounds a year. That proposal not being agreed to, he went away on Michaelmas day. Three days after the master agreed to give him the money, and then the pauper mediately entered upon the second service, and lived with Bill the Michaelmas after.-THE COURT held this not to be a at. 1 Barnard, 354. yeur, Salso in the K. v. Ilam, Mic. 25 Geo. 2, a gentleman of the K. v. Hoddesdon, Ea. 17 Geo. 3, the pauper five at Michaelmas-day, went to Hoddesdon, to enquire after Fare at Mr. Fear's, and staid about three weeks or a month king, without any terms being talked of; her aunt cane, and let her for a whole year, at the wages of 41, ence from the day she first came to the service. paper staid till the da, after Michaelmas-day following, ⚫ mistress paid her ine whole year's wages; and she Conditional hiring. then quitted the service with her own and her master's consen The counsel who was to have shewn cause in support of th order removing the pauper to Hoddesdon, acknowledged tha after the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Ilam, he could n maintain that a retrospective hiring was good.--- Aston J. '] be sure you cannot. Caldecot's Cases, 23. So also in the K. v. Marton, Ea. 31 Geo. 3, the paupe being settled in Singleton, at eighteen or nineteen, went in the service of a man in Marton, and staid about a fortnig or three weeks without any hiring or agreement of any hi being made between them. His father then made an agre ment with the master, for the pauper to serve him for a ye at 2s. 6d. per week. And the fortnight or three weeks whi the pauper had been in service, was to make a part of, a 'be reckoned in the year.' The pauper staid in this serv upwards of fifteen months from his first coming, and receiv his wages according to the above agreement. The counsel w was to have shewn that this gained a settlement in Marton, : mitted that the order could not be supported, because a ret spective hiring was not sufficient. 4 Term Rep. 257. But an hiring for a quarter of a year, and if the master a servant like one another, to continue for a year, is a go hiring for a year Thus in the K. v. Lidney, Tr. 6 & 7 G 2, the pauper was hired to a man in the parish of Stroude, a quarter of a year, and if her master and she liked one a ❝ther, she was to continue for a year,' and to have 31. for year's wages. She entered into the said service, and contin therein one whole year, and received the said wages of 31.1 COURT held this conditional hiring to be a good hiring fo year since the master and she did like one another, an yearss service was actually performed under it. Burrow's S Cas. 1. So in the K. v. St. Ebbs, Hil. 22 Geo. 2. the pau being settled in St. Ebbs, was hired to a person at Holya in this manner : he was to come for a quarter of a year, 'to have after the rate of 20s. a-year; and if he and his ma liked each other was to continue on.' 'He continued a and a half over and above the said quarter, without any fur or other hiring, and received his wages as he had occasion the same. It was moved to quash the order of remova St. Ebbs, upon the ground that a conditional hiring hiring for a year, provided the condition be performed. that therefore the settlement was in Holywell, and not in Ebb. A rule to shew cause was granted, and made absol no cause being shewn. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 289. So an hiring for a year, with liberty to leave the servic a month's wages or a month's warning, on either side, is a hiring; and service for a year under it will gain a settlem Thus in the K. v. New Windsor, Hil. 8 Geo. 2, the pa was hired to a person of Thorpe, and was to go into her vice a month upon liking, and to have 57. a year wages; was to go away on a month's wages or a month's warning, "to be at any time paid or given on either side by the said "master or servant." She continued in her service near two years without any other hiring, and received her wages quartaly-BY THE COURT. The pauper is legally settled at Thorpe ; for it is stated, that she was hired to a person at Thorpe. Now a general hiring is a hiring for a year, and the limitation of its being to cease upon a month's wages or warning on either side, will make no difference; for that is the common method; and the parties in this case, though they had it in their power to avoid the contract, have not done so; for it is expressly stated, that she continued in her said service near two years. Burrow's Sess. Cas. 203. So in the K. v. Atherton, Hil. 16 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired by an inhabitant of Barton, for one year, at 41. wages payable quarterly: and it was agreed, at the time of the hiring, that either the master or servant should be at liberty to determine the contract at the end of any quarter, on a month's notice. But no notice was ever given, and the pauper continued in his master's service in Barton the whole year. The pauper, at the time of the hiring, declared that the reason of the said hiring being made determinable at the end of any quarter upon such notice as aforesaid, was, "that he would not be hired as to lose his former settlement."-But by Lee Ch. J. and the whole court unanimously. This is a good settlement Barton, for here is both an hiring for a year, and a service year. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 203. ings. Bat the hiring for a year must be by an entire contract: and Several bicdatact hirings for half a year each, or any period less than 4 tar, cannot be coupled together so as to make a hiring for year-Thus in Dunsford v. Ridgwick, Mic. 9 Ann.— A person was hired for half a year, and after that was hired “again for another half-year to the same person," and therearved a year in one continued entire service, but by se-. kirags.It was urged that here was a service for a ar, and a hiring for a year, though by several contracts; and at the hiring need not be by one entire contract. But by Lot. It ought to be one entire contract, and one entire ; the one is required by the statute as well as the other. ervice under several contracts shall gain a settlement, one Serres by the month, by the week, or by the day, may, ematinues a year, gain a settlement; one may hire by ay for charity; but there is danger of being chargeable such a person by the year: for such a term as a is not supposed a master would hire one, unless able of body, and so a person not likely to become chargeable. * Falk, $35. So also in the K. v. Houghton, Hil. 4 Geo. 1, the pauper and with one Trubshaw of Houghton, from Ash Wednesday at Christmas, and served him that time. He then went away from him, and staid with his father in Ranton for about a week. He then returned to Trubshaw, and was again hire with him for eleven months, and served him the said eleve months. He then departed from Trubshaw, and took h clothes with him, and was absent one week. He then return ed to Trubshaw, and was hired with him for eleven month and accordingly served him, and then left that service, ar went to his father in Ranton, and staid about one week. T pauper then served one Sution of the said parish of Houghto for about three weeks. He then returned to Ranton, where staid for above a week, and then returned to the said Sutton Houghton, and hire himself for eleven months; and d accordingly serve within a fortnight or three weeks of t last eleven months, when, by agreement with Sutton, to av a settlement in the parish of Houghton, he left him, to his clothes, and went into the parish of Gnosall, and th continued about a week. The pauper then returned to Sutt and continued with him so long as to make up his serv of the eleven months. Three weeks before Christmas hired himself again for another eleven months, and served from that time till within three weeks of Michaelmas followi and then came away, and married. The question was, whet these several hirings were sufficient to gain a settlement in parish of Houghton ?-Parker Ch. J. said, this was an appa fraud, and different from all the other cases.-Prait J. we must take the law to be, that there must be an hiring f year, and a service for a year: here the sessions have fou specially, and there is neither hiring or service for a y And suppose a man that lives in a parish encumbered poor, hires a servant for eleven months only to prevent his g ing a settlement, how can this hiring and service gain a se nient? and as to the fraud, if there is any, the justice peace are judges of that.-Eyre J. was of the same opi with Pratt.-Afterwards in Easter term, after long de and consideration, the opinion of all the 'Court was, that ** "hirings and services in the parish of Houghton were "sufficient to gain a settlement." Foley 137. 1 Strange [For though such hirings as in this case do defeat settlem yet if that is a mischief, it is to be remedied by the legis and not by the Court, which is to judge on the law as it st 10 Mod: Rep. 392] de But a service for a year, though it be under different hi is good, if one of the hirings is for a year. Thus in the Overton, Hil. 10 Will3, the pauper being settled in Oc on the 25th of March, contracted with a person of the of Steventon, for the wages of twenty shillings, to serve hin the said 25th of March until the Michaelmas following : time she served accordingly. At the said Michaelmas, her ter contracted with her from the said Michaelmas, for on next ensuing, for the wages of thirty shillings; and she, acc to the last mentioned contract, remained with her said: until some time in the month of April following; in month they parted by mutual consent; the master paying her her proportion of wages then due. THE SESSIONS conceived, that the pauper, by continuing more than one whole year under this hiring, gained a settlement in the parish of Steventon.-And THE COURT of King's Bench were of the same opinion; for the service under the hiring for half a year, and the half a year's service under the hiring for the year,answers the end of the statute, and is a good service for the year*. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 549. So in Brightwell v. Westhally, Ea. 1 Geo. 1, the pauper was hired to serve from three weeks after Michaelmas to the Michaelmas then next ensuing, which time he regularly served. On the ensuing Michaelmas he was hired again by the same master into the same place to serve him for a year, but under this se cond hiring he only served for eleven months.-By The court. By the statutes there must be a hiring for a year, and a service for the space of one whole year. Now it appears from the facts of the present case, that the words of the last statute are satis fed, for there was a hiring for a year, and a service for a whole year; and although that service was not under the hiring for a year, yet as the service was never discontinued, we think upon the authority of the K. v. Overton, and upon considering the intent of the legislature in the framing of the former statutes upon this subject, that the latter statute is answered, and that the pauper gained a settlement by this hiring and service. 2 Bott, Cunst's ed. 417. Foley, 143. 1 Sess. Cas. 92. So in the K.. Aynhoe, Mic. 1 Geo. 2. a parishioner of Ayahoe was hired into the parish of Bicester from Christmas to Michaelmas, and served accordingly, and at the said Michaelmas was hired again by the same master, for a year, bat served only till Midsummer following: the question was, Whether these services gained a settlement at Bi ester ?—On the authority of the cases of the K. v. Overton, and of BrightBell v. Westhalley, it was adjudged that they did. But Raymond Ch. J. and Page J. declared, they thought that the legis lature meant that the hiring should be for a year, and the service for the same year, and had it been a case prime impressionis There is also a case reported in 1. lord Raymond, 426, under the name of the K. v. Southmolton in Suffolk, Hil. 10 Wil. 3, wherein the same point appears to have been deterniined; but as the files of the Court of King's Bench, have been searched for the record of this case, and it cannot be found, Sir James Burrows conceives, that its not absolutely impossible but that it may be the same case as the K.v. Overton, supra. The K. v. Southmolton, according to lord Raymond, was thus; The pauper was a covenant servant, first for half a year, which time he served; and then for another year, and served half of that. The question was, Whether this was a service for a year, within the statute-Rokeby, Burton, and Gould, Holt Ch. J. being absent, held, that it was, because the statute designed only that the party should serve a year. |