gical contract, a matter of right and not of dispensation. SECONDLY, That there was no service for a year: for that in this case there was no commencement of the first service at all; that, before it commenced, a total end by mutual agreement was put to the contract upon which it was founded; that it was therefore the case of a mere naked hiring, without any service whatsoever under it. But by lord Mansfield, Ch. J. in this case it is expressly stated, that on the Friday before Michaelmas-day, the pauper was hired for a year from Michaelnas. It is then expressly stated, that they stood in the relation of master and servant from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. If so, it would be repugnant to say, that this was not a hiring for a year. The case itself contradicts the idea, that it was a hiring from the Wednesday after Michaelmas. Then the absence was matler of indulgence on the part of the master; and is so common in these transactions, and so reasonable upon the commencement of a service, that it never has been considered as impeaching or affecting the validity of a contract. What passed upon the Wednesday was a conversation respecting the different kind of labour in which the master then proposed to employ the ser. vant. The servant gives up his objection; the master betters his wages; and the service goes on and is completed. It seems therefore to be a hiring and service for a year, without any interruption on account of the short disagreement.-Willes J. Here the master, having disappointed the servant of the service. intended, makes a recompence to the servant by giving him ano, ther service and additional wages. Nice distinctions, subtilties, must not be admitted to deprive a man of his settlement. As to the rest, as the whole was the transaction of a day, this case seems to be governed by that of Ellis field; where the court will not allow of the fraction of a day.-Buller J. delivered a like opinion. Caldecot's Cas. 359.

So in the K. v. Sulgrave, Ea. 27 Geo. 3, the pauper being settled at Sulgrave, was hired the latter end of November, to ove Welsh of Wormleighton till Michaelmas then next, at 61. 10. wages. Two or three days before Michaelmas, the master offered him the like sum for the year ensuing, which the pauper did not think sufficient. On Michaelmas-day the master offered him seven guineas, and they had agreed for wages all but the expence of washing. The servant had no intention of leaving his master, and he believed his master had no intention of parting with him. He continued in his master's house, and did what was to be done as usual, but without any obligation, lodged at his master's house, and did not remove any of his clothes, or offer himself to any other master, nor did his master seek after another servant. He thought himself at liberty to have left his master if any better hiring had offered. He did not agree with his master on this day; but the day next but one, being the second day after Michaelmas, the pauper agreed to accept the seven guineas as before offered him for the year ensuing. He did not expect that his wages were to be due on the

following Michaelmas, but at the expiration of the year from t day he agreed with his 'master to accept the seven guineas: ar he continued in the service till the Whitsuntide following.—It w contended, that the two services at Wormleighton could not ! coupled, because there was a chasm for a day. But by Asi hurst J. I think this was a good service in Wormlighton, A that the statutes require is, that there shall be a hiring for year, and a continuance in the same service for a year. No the case states, that in November the pauper was hired to ser till the Michaelmas following; that two or three days befo Michaelmas, the master offered him the same wages for t next year; that on Michaelmas-day he offered him seven g neas, and that the second day after Michaelmas the paup agreed to accept the seven guineas which had been before fered it is further stated, that the pauper had no intention leaving his master, and that he did all his master's work as usu And though he thought himself at liberty to leave his maste service on the Michaelmas day, and that, when he agreed w his master on the second day after Michaelmas, he consider that the year was to be computed from that day, yet there w a good hiring and service for a year. If so, the only questi is, if hether there was any discontinuance ? It appears from t case that there was not; for the servant continued in the sa capacity; he did his work as usual; and if he had continued serve for half a year without entering into any new contract, would have been entitled to a compensation for such service; t law would have implied, that he continued under the former agr ment, and would have measured his damages by his form wages. Then he must be taken to have been in the capac of a hired servant during that time.-Grose J. I agree w the counsel who argued against the rule, that two services ca not be joined if there be a chasm between them, or if they not ejusdem generis: but in the present case there was chasm, and the services were ejusdem generis. 1 Term Re p. 71

But in the case of Wichford v. Bretjord, Lert Assizes, lisbury, 11 Ann, a person, five days after Michaelmas 17 was hired to B from the said five days after Michaelmas 1709 Michaelmas 1710. On Michaelmus day 1710, he departed fr his master and service, and was paid his wages to that li On the next day after his departure he returned, and covena ed with his said master to serve him there for another year; a month or five weeks before the end of the last year, he his master parted.— Powis Judge of Assize held this to be settlement, because here is no hiring for an entire year, service for a year pursuant to the hiting. Forte que, 311.

So in the K. v. Caversu all. E. 31 Cico. 2, the pauper bired for a year to Edward Brassington of Trentham, served him till within three weeks of the end of the year; wh on some disputes arising hetwist him and his master, he w with his own consent, discharged from his service, and rece all his wages except what was deducted for the three wee

As soon as he left this his service, he went to London, and was absent about a fortnight. Upon his return, at Mrs. Brassington's request (his master being then from home), he went again into their service; and within a week after the expiration of the first year, his said master hired him again for another year; and be served him, in Trentham, for about six months of that second year, and then left him. By lord Mansfield Ch. J, Here is a chasm of a fortnight or three weeks. And the first contract was absolutely dissolved; and so continued for a fortaight or three weeks. Therefore this last service cannot be connected with the former part of the year. For if a chasm of a fortnight or three weeks be not a discontinuance of the service, it will be hard to say what is. Therefore I hold that here was no settlement gained in Trentham.-The other judges concurred. Burrow's Sett, Cus. 461.

And to connect services in successive years, the servant must be unmarried at the commencement of the succeeding yearThus in the K. v. St. Giles's, Reading, Tr. 18 Geo. 3, the pauper, being an unmarried man, on 19th December, went in. to the service of an inn-keeper in the parish of St. Mary in Reading under a general hiring as a post-boy, and continued in that service in the said parish for the space of seven months, when he married. After his marriage he remained in his mas ter's service in the said parish for the space of four months, when he took lodgings in the parish of St. Giles in Reading, and removed thither with his wife, where he slept for the space of seven months, continuing to serve his said master for the whole of the last mentioned seven months without coming to any new hiring, and so served his said master for the space of eighteen months in the whole, and then left his said master's service. The pauper with his wife and children had Erea removed by order of two justices, to St. Giles, and the sessions had confirmed that order.-In support of these orders, it was observed, that it had been frequently determined, that marriage did not put an end to the contract between the mas. ter and servant *, and that the word unmarried in the statute, refers only to the time of hiring, and not to the service; that this being so, and no new agreement having been entered into,the service of the first and second year were to be connected and referred to the same original hiring; when the pauper being an unmarried man, the place where the last forty days were served was his settlement.-By Willes J. who delivered the judgment of the court. Marriage does not dissolve the contract, if it happened during the year in which a man has been fired as a single man, And if there had been a residence of forty-days in the parish of St. Giles at the end of the first year, the pauper would have been well settled there. But here the pauper was incapable of making a new contract at the commencement of the second year; presumption can go

See in the case of Farringdon and Witty, in p. 96 supra.

no further; and at that time he was a married man. In this case, suppose at the end of the first year a new agreement had been made between the master and servant? A service under that could not have given the pauper a settlement. Shall he then by an implied contract do that, which in express and direct terms he could not do? If the original hiring were constructively to be continued throughout the second year, it might last for twenty years; and parishes on such a construc. tion as is contended for in support of these orders, might be burthened by restrospect with familics from whose labour they had received no benefit. Orders quashed. Caldecot's Cases,

54.

So if a servant, being hired for a year, be rendered incapable of entering upon his service at the time when it is to com. mence by reason of sickness or otherwise; and the master therefore refuse to receive him, the serving under a new agree. ment for less than a year, shall not connect with the original hiring, for the purpose of giving a settlement-Thus in the K. v. Wintersett, Ea. 23 Geo. 3. the pauper was hired a few days before Martinmas, to one Oundsworth, of the township of Stuinburgh, for one year, received 1s. for his Godspenny, and was to have three guineas wages; the very night of the hiring, he fell ill, and continued sick and unable to go, and did not go into his service till a month after Martinmas; when the pauper and his mother went to the master's house, who be ing from home, they were shown to his wife: who complained, that the pauper had not come to his service according to the agreement, and therefore refused to receive him: whereupon the pauper's mother said, "We must full into your will "for wages, and take what you will allow us ;" and left the pauper in his service, where he continued until Martinmas fol lowing: when the master was sent for, and received for fortyeight weeks wages after the rate of 1s. 2d. per week: being less than the rate of the original wages.-By lord Mansfield. The service had never commenced under the first contract: if it had, no doubt the master must have supported him in his sickness. But that is not the question: the point is, that the agreement acted upon here was a fresh agreement, when he re covered from his sickness; and the beginning of his service was then. Under the former the mistress refused to receive him. Then considering the whole contract at an end, the actual service was but for eleven months; that is, to the Martinmas next; and the submitting to the abatement of the month's wages at the end of the year, is an affirmance of the agreement made by his mother; and this as rescinding the original agreement, destroys more than the legal or constructive service; it shows also, that there was no hiring for a year: so that both the hiring and service must be considered as imperfect and ineffectual. -Butler J. If aservant is taken ill afterthe service has commenced, the master is bound to support him,and cannot turn him away on that account. But here it is not true, that the service began

der the first contract. That was executory. It was made some days before Martinmas, to commence at Martinmas; and in fact it never commenced. When the pauper went, they made a new contract, and under that his service commenced.. Caldecof's Cases, 238.

a settlement.

If a servant serve half a year in one parish, and then removes In what place with his master, and serves the other half year in another pa- the service rish, he gains a settlement where the last forty days are served, must be per-Thas in the K, v. Ashton, Tr. 12 Aun. the pauper was formed to gain hired for a year in the parish of Ashton, where he served for half a year, and then the master and she removed to the parish Pathall to another farm, where she continued the rest of y-By Parker Ch. J. Here is what the act requires, a hiring for a year, and a service for a year; for it is the same service, and the statute doth not tie it down to one place. For if a person is hired to a master in one parish, and goes with hin and serves him forty days in one, and goes with him into several others, and serves forty days in each, and serves his

the

for one whole year, that parish in which he continues the last forty days before the end of the year, shall be the place of his suitlement. And the reason why the forty days residence aa settlement, is, because he comes there with his master, you cannot remove him from his master; and therefore ce so far settled that they cannot be removed, that is led a settlement. BY THE COURT. The settlement is at 2 Bull, Const's ed. 454. Foley, 188. Cas. Sett.

& Rea. 23.

the K. v. Eldersley, Mic. 4 Geo. 1, A hired himself for a year to be warrener in the parish of Eldersley, in a warhere, to joint occupiers of it, who lived in two parishes Getat the parish of Eldersley. He dieted and lodged fight weeks with one of the occupiers (and for the rest and part of the time) in the warren-BY THE COURT. His settis in Eldersley. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 445.

Petersham v. Grævenney, Tr. 5 Geo. 1, a maid was ed for a year to a master, and served for a year. The house adla two parishes. The master lay in the parish of A, and the service was done to the master in A, but the maid lay parish of B. in the same house.-THE COURT referred it gre J. on the assizes; and he conferred with two other and all three were of opinion that she was settled in B, the maid-servant lay. Fortescue, 221. Foley, 198. the K., Hemioak, Hil. 2 Geo. 2, the pauper cove

one HJ, then of Hemioak, to serve him in hus

Boy, for one year; and in pursuance of the said contract ved with him there for three quarters of a year, and then bus said master into the parish of C, where he lived with and served him the rest of the year.-THE COURT were arly paion, that the pauper had hereby gained a settle But in C. 2 Sess. Cas. 137.

So if a servant remove with the master into another parish,

L