such servant will gain a settlement by serving the last for days in that parish, although the master may have come the merely on a visit. Thus,in the K. v. St. Peter's in Oxfor Tr. 8 Geo. 1, the pauper was hired at Christ-church, which an extra-parochial place, for one year, to a lady who liv there with her son-in-law, as a sojourner or boarder; she st in her service there for some time, when her mistress went on a visit to a son in the parish of Farley, for three mont the pauper was with her, and continued in her service there the three months; at the end of which the mistress retur again to Christ-church, and there the year's service expired. no settlement could be gained in Christ-church, which was extraparochial place; the question was, Whether the pau gained any settlement in Fawley, by living with her mist there, she being only a visitor?-AND BY THE WHOLE COU The settlement of the servant does not at all depend on the tlement of the mistress; for if a master and mistress hire a vant for a year, and after remove from one parish to and during that year, it may be properly said, that the serva hired in every parish he shall go into with his master and tress, and the parish where he lives with his master and tress the last forty days of his or her year, is the place of or her settlement. Foley, 194. 1 Strange, 524. Cas, of

139.

But if a certificate person be hired as a servant in the c cated parish, and go with his master to a watering-place fo season, his residence at such watering-place is to be consi as a continuation of the service in the certificated parish although he may have resided there for the last forty days the expiration of the year; he shall not, if he continue same service, by such residence be deemed to have gain intermediate settlement, so as to discharge the certificate enable him therefore to gain a settlement in the par which he was certificated, by serving his master there fo ther year-This was determined in the K. v. Alton, Ea, 3 2, the father of the pauper came under a certificate from parish of Alton, into the parish of Elvetham. The paup other children were born there; the pauper on 29 August was hired for a year as a covenant servant by Sir Hen thorp at Elvetham, and served that year out in that I at the expiration of this year, he was hired again as a co servant by him for another year, and served that year, last forty days of the second year were at Scarboro Yorkshire; he did not at the end of the second year q service, but on the 29th of August 1736, applied to his to make a new agreement for another year, when the said it would be time enough when they returned home vetham; hereupon he continued for about six weeks 、 master at Scarborough, when they returned home to. El and he was then hired for a third year, which he serve Elvetham, and continued in his service for seven year his wages being advanced every year; he afterwards quit

service, and married, and had four children; and the order was, for removing the wife and four children from Elvetham (the busband having left his family) to Alton, which gave the certificate. -The justices considered him serving altogether in Elvetham, and that he could not gain a settlement there. It was contended, that they were in the wrong, and that he ought to be consider. ed as having gained a settlement in Elvetham, notwithstanding the certificate. For though the service for a year of a certificated person will not gain a settlement, yet as the master went to Scarborough, and staid there forty days; it was insisted thrt the servant by such means gained a settlement at ScarboTough, which discharged the certificate, and then he afterwards gained a settlement at Elsetham.-The case was argued, and THE COURT took time to consider of it; afterwards lord Mans. field delivered the opinion of the court-After stating the case as above, he said: The general question is, Whether this acci dental service of forty days at Scarborough, acquired a settlement to the servant? It is immaterial, whether the master has or has not a settlement in the place where the service is; because that will not prevent the servant gaining a settlement: bat the objection here is, Whether the forty days at Scarborough are to be considered barely as a continuation of the service at Elvethan, or a new bona fide service at Scarborough? There are several cases, where a servant, though locally absent, may yet be considered as continuing his service in the place to which he was hired. So if a servant was ill, and went to Bath by the consent of the master, that would be a continuation of the service. The general ground upon which this must be determined, if there are no authorities, is this: Substantially, the master lived at Elvetham; he hired his servant to be a servant there; the parish was jealous of the servant coming in there, and gots certificate from Alton. Sir Henry happens to go to Scarborough, as a sojourner for a particulur purpose, not as an in. habitant. When they are to make an greement for a third year, They both consider themselves as absent from home. It would he perilous for those public places of resort, if such a service were to gain a settlement. Besides, what fraud would be brought upon parishes, if settlements might be gained in this manner, when a parish trusts to certificates! Suppose a person in service has an accident upon the road by breaking a leg, and ́hestays forty day's at a place, shall that be a settlement? Suppose he stays forty days with his master at a sea-port, being wind.bound, would that gain a settlement? The master's abode here is at Elvetham, which I lay great stress on. The domicil (as the Civilians call it,) of Sir Henry was not at Scarborough. In the present case, therefore, the whole of the service was only a continuation of the service at Elvetham. But I would have it observed, that I lay great stress on both the master and servant considering Elvetham as their home, as also upon the precedent and subsequent service, and upon the circumstance of the certificate. Bott, Const's ed. 465. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 418.

But in general, though the last forty days service be per formed at a watering-place, it will be sufficient to gain a settle ment. This was determined in the K. v. Bath Easton, Ea, 1 Geo. 3: the pauper, about the latter end of August or begin ning of September 1763, was hired for a year to the Rev. Mr Robinson, who then resided at his house at Bath Easton, as hi only place of general residence. He entered upon the said ser rice; and served the said year and some months. He serv ed the first part at Bath Easton; but about the latter end April, or beginning of May 1764, he attended his master an family to Exmouth, where they went for sea-bathing ; h master hired at that place the whole of a small lodging house by the week, in which he staid ten weeks; during th whole of which time the pauper served him there. He the hired, by the week, lodgings in another house in Exmouth where he staid, and the pauper with him, for two month the pauper was then discharged from his service. Exmouth is place generally resorted to by persons from Exeter and Lond for sea-bathing; and is in the nature of Brighthelmston but of inferior estimation.-It was contended, that the pauper settlement was at Bath Easton, which was his master's onl place of general residence; and not at Exmouth, which w a public place of resort for sea-bathing, and where the mast was only a casual resident, a mere sojourner, his domicil bei at Bath Easton. And the Alton case was relied on, as layi down a general rule, exclusive of and unconnected with the pa ticular circumstances of that case, "That if a master goes to "public place, and resides there as a sojourner forty day "having a domicil elsewhere, his servant who atten

him thither, shall not gain a settlement at such public plac "by serving him forty days in his casual residence there -On the other hand it was insisted, that the pauper's settleme was at Exmouth, where he served the last forty days. A it was denied that any such general rule was laid down in t Alton case, as had been suggested. It turned upon particul circumstances; and here there were none of those circumstanc upon which the Court laid particular stress. Here there w no continuation of the original hiring; no return with t master to his former home; no re-hiring: no certificate. T master went, with his whole family, to Exmouth: but how for what purpose he went thither, was not material. The s vant attended him thither; served him there forty days; a finished his service there.-By lord Mansfield Ch. J. The is a manifest distinction between the present case and that Alton. Here the service ended at Exmouth; in the other ca it was continued: and wous renewed at Elvetham; and

This case is not noticed by Burn, although it overturns the po which he considers as established by the case of Alton v. Elveth namely, that serving a master for for ty days at a public watering-pl does not gain the servant a settlement at such place in any instance.

last forty days were served at Elvetham. There, the servant was a certificate-man from Alton to Elvetham, when he was hired by Sir Harry Calthorp at Elvetham. That case was considered as a continuation of the service at Elvetham; this is no continuation of the service at Bath Easton. He mentioned, that in that case he laid great stress upon the contract not being finished at Scarborough, but continued over; and also upon the servant's being re-bired at Elsetham, and serving there seven years; and likewise upon his being under a certificate from Alton, when originally hired. So that Scarborough's being a watering-place was far from being the sole ground of that resolution. However, we will think of it; there should be certainty established in cases of this sort.-Aston J. The settlement of the servant does not depend upon the settlement of the master; it is the last forty days service that gains a settlement to the servant, in the place where it is performed. Here, the last forty days service was performed at Ermouth ; and the service ended there: therefore he gained a settlement at Exmouth. And he did not see any hardship upon public places, if, after getting a great deal of money by persons coming to reside at them, they should sometimes be charged with a servant who had gained a settlement by serving a master who hired a house there. The benefit they receive from the mastera more than balances the inconveniences likely to arise from the accidental settlement of the servants. And if servants do gain a settlement by serving forty days there, yet they generally remain forty days longer in the service of their masters in the parishes where their masters are usually resident in their ordinary course of life. So that this incumbrance upon public places does not happen so frequently as might perhaps be imagined; nor is upon the whole at all injurious to them. Willer J. differed, and thought it to be within the reason of the Alton case,—Ashurst J. thought with Aston J. that it was reasonable that public places, which profit greatly by the resort of company coming to them for health or pleasure, should bear their share in the burthen of supporting the servants who have attended them there long enough to gain a settlement. He also noted a material difference between the present case and that of Atton; the servant did not serve the last forty days at Searborough, but went back to his master to Elvetham, was re-hired there for a third year, served it out at Elvetham, and continued in his master's service there for seven years more; whereas the last forty days of the service now under considerafien were at Ermouth, where the servant was discharged, and never returned to Bath Easton. He inclined, therefore at present, to think that his settlement was at Exmouth.-THE Court took time to advise; afterwards lord Mansfield delivered their unanimous opinion, that the pawper's settlement was at Exmouth. This is a common hiring for a year: there is nothing particular in it. And in case of a common hiring for a year, a service with the master for a year gains a settlement

to the servant in the place where the last forty days of such service were performed. Here the service with the master for the last forty days ended at Exmouth. There was no conti nuance of service with the master, after the master's return to Bath Easton. In the Alton case, there was many particular "circumstances: the servant was born at Elvetham, under a "certificate from Alton; and could not gain a settlement "there by his original hiring and service in that place; not "without a discontinuance of it and a new subsequent hiring, But no such discontinuance ever happened in that case; the "service did not end at Scarborough, it continued. The ser "vant at Scarborough proposed a new agreement for anothe 66 year. His master said, it would be time enough when they "returned home to Elvetham. Whereupon the servant con ❝tinued on, for about six weeks, until they returned t "Elvetham; when he was again hired by his master for a thir << year, and served it out at Elvetham, and continued in h "master's service for seven years more, in Elvetham. So th "it was a continuation of the original hiring: the contra "did not end at Searborough. The question therefore in th "case was, Whether serving his master, who resided at Sca "borough as a sojourner, for above forty days, should ga "the servant a settlement there, when his former hiring "Elvetham was not discontinued nor ended at Scarboroug "but on the contrary continued and went on until and aft "their return to the master's general residence at Elvetham "But that case does not lay it down generally, that no se ❝vants can gain settlements at places where people go "drink waters, though they serve their masters or mistres there for 40 days. If it does, it is wrong; for no su (3 general rule ought to be laid down." We are all of o nion, that this servant, who went with his master to this pla and served him there for the last forty days of his servi which ended at this place, and was not at all continued any further time or place, is legally settled there by serv the last forty days at it.-Willes J. now strongly decia his assent to this opinion, and added, that he hoped it wo now be understood, that serving a master forty days at a p lic place gains the servant a settlement at that public pla Burrow's Sett. Cases, 774. [the like point was also determine the case of the K. v. St. Andrew's Holborn-Sce p. 158 inf

And it is not necessary to the gaining a settlement the servant should reside in the same house with the mas -Thus in the X. v. Whitechapel, Ea. 11 Geo. 1, the 1 per was hired by a person who kept a glasshouse in H chapel, for five years; to work at this glasshouse at per week; the pauper never lodged with his master in house any part of the time, but lodged at another hous the parish. It was objected that this was not such a ser as was intended by the statute, for this man having n lodged in his master's house, could not be considered