ment in Great Chilton. He delivered himself at some lengt --But THE THREE OTHER JUDGES were decisively of a differen opinion. Ashhurst J. At first I was inclined to think the the former contract was not absolutely dissolved, and that th second was merely a continuation and modification of it; bu on further consideration I am of opinion that the firs contract was entirely put an end to by the second. Under th first contract, the pauper was to live in his master's house, part of his family, and was to receive the yearly wages of 8 Under the new contract the terms were materially altered: t servant was to go into another farm of his master's; he was receive weekly wages, and was to continue in service a ye from that time. After the second contract, if the master h wished to compel the servant to return to his own house, a to live in his family, at the former wages, the latter might ha resisted, on the ground of the second contract, which she that the former one was abandoned, and that the pauper w not serving under it. Then if the second were a new contra distinct from the former one, the services under the two cann be coupled for the purpose of giving the pauper a settlemer because, at the time of entering into the second he was ma ried.'---Grose J. If the original agreement had continued force, the pauper would have gained a settlement by serving year under it; but the question is, Whether or not there we a dissolution of the service, and of the first contract? I cann say that the service under the second contract was a service u der the first, because, on comparing the two contracts togeth it appears that 'there is a difference in the duration of the ter in the kind of service, and in the wages, the former of whi is the most material; and when two agreements are totally i consistent, the second must operate as a disolution of the fir By the first contract the pauper was hired for a year, to co mence at Martinmas; he served under that till May follo ing, when he made another agreement for another year, commence at that day. Suppose at the end of the first yo the servant had said that he would no longer continue in master's service, for that he had been serving under the fi agreement only, and was not bound to serve under the secon there is no doubt but that the master might have compelled h to serve until the May following, by virtue of the second agr ment; this shews that the second agreement put an end to first; it is not necessary to lay so much stress on the other stances of difference between the two contracts: the k of service, and the quantum of wages: I rely most on ⚫ alteration of the term of service, which I think is decisi -Lawrence J. the question in the present case is, Whether not there were a dissolution of the first contract? The o way in which it can be considered that the pauper gained a s tlement in Great Chilton, is by treating the second as a p longation of the original contract; and it has been argi that by the second agreement the pauper was to serve until

end of the then current year, and for six months longer: BUT it strikes me that is not the fair construction of the second agreement; at the end of the first six months service the pauper did not agree to serve for six months after the end of that year, but for a year to commence at the time of the second agreement; on the whole it appears to me, that the second contract was distinct from the former one, and put an end to it, because the second was inconsistent with it: so that 'the pauper 'gained no settlement in Great Chilton, because the service fur the last forty days was not performed under a yearly hir. ing entered into when he was unmarried.' 5 Term Rep.

672

So if there be a hiring for a year, and the service is continued beyond the year, without any new agreement, the servant shall be settled in the parish where he resides with his master the last 40 days. Thus in the K. v. Croscombe, Mic. 19 Ges. 2, the pauper, being single, hired himself for a year for 41 and a livery. He accordingly lived with his master in the liberty of St. Andrew, during that year, and had his * and livery; and without coming to any new agree. wat at all, continued with his master in the same liberty, about a quarter of a year longer. His master then removed to St. Cuthberts, taking the pauper along with him, and the pauper continued to live with him there about six months, still under the first contract. It was contended, that the pauper was

ettled in St. Cuthbert's, for that this was not the same rvice as the first year's was: for that the first contract was completed and executed on both sides, and was determined. It kad gained the servant a settlement in St. Andrew's. And there was no new contract or agreement at all: nor was any the stated that could destroy the settlement gained in St. An. drer by serving a whole year there.-But the WHOLE COURT * minimous, that as there was a hiring for a year, and a serve for a year, and a continuance under the same service, ww sufficient to gain a settlement; and that such settlement t be in the parish where it was performed for the last 40 Burrow's Sett, Cases, 256.

if the master remove into another parish, and before raat has resided there 40 days, his time of service aires, the service under a new hiring for another year, shali condered as a continuation of the former service, and conwith it, so as to entitle the servant to a settlement in prish to which his master removed, although he may not ved for a whole year under such second hiring. Thus, 3.1. Underbarrow and Bradley-field, Hil. 20 Geo. 3, paper being settled in the township of Underbarrow and infeld, was hired for one year, from Whitsuntide 1770 to huntide 1771, to one Burrow, then an inhabitant of these township, for the yearly wages of 188,

She lived bermaster in Underbarrow and Bradley-field, under the sad hiring, till 12th May 1771, when he removed with the pau

per into the township of Strictland Roger, where she serv for seven days, which completed her service of one year und the hiring she then hired herself again to the same mast for another year, to wit, from Whitsuntide 1771 to Whitsu tide 1772, for the yearly wages of 25s. and, under the st last-mentioned hiring, continued in his service in the said tow ship of Strictland Roger, from the said Whitsuntide 177 till Candlemas following: when she and her master parted mutual consent. It was contended, that this case was dist guishable from that of the K. v. Croscombe: that here the o ginal settlement of the pauper, and her settlement at the time the hiring, was in Underbarrow: that as she was therefore der an incapacity of acquiring any new or original seti ment at Underbarrow, she could not have any derivative i communicated by a continuation, even if it had existed, such first hiring: that there was such a continuation under first contract, and that there was no new agreement, was that case expressly stated, but that here the first conti was stated to have been at an end, the wages received a new contract for a new consideration made; neither it in this case stated, that there was no chasm, no inter between the two hirings, so as to prevent their be connected for the purpose of giving a settlement; so that, ad to the difference of wages, it was to every intent the same th and must have the same consequences as a new engagen with a new master; in the same manner as an old tenant m ing a new agreement for rent, shall no longer be considere holding from year to year under the old demise.-On the o side it was insisted, that it is quite indifferent in what ́ pa the service is, if it is the same service: that the state of case shut out the argument upon the interval between two hirings; for, that upon the completion of one service, to be bound a second, must mean immediately; that a reas able space the law will allow; and that a discontinua and absence of an hour, or of any space of time not exc ing a day, is insufficient to defeat a settlement *.-By Mansfield. The point is fully settled; and we are all clear, that this was a continuance of the same service with increase of wages. Caldecot's Cases, - 65.

And when the last forty days are served in a place wher settlement can be gained, the settlement is in the place w the preceding forty days were served. Thus in the K. v Andrew's, Holborn, Hil. 24 Geo. 3, the pauper being se in Aston, in 1760 became a yearly hired servant to an Atto of Furnival's Inn, London, with whom he lived about years. The usual place of his master's residence was Fu

*See the case of the K. v. Fifehead, and the K. v. Ellisfield, 136 supra.

tal's Inn, but he used frequently to go to Bath for his health when the pauper always accompanied him. His stay on those occasions, was sometimes for four or five months together. He was always in lodgings there, and generally on the South Parade, in the parish of St. James in Bath. During the latter part of the eight years, that is, during the last three years, he resided rather more at Bath than at Furnival's Inn; and the last time the pauper was at Bath with him, he staid several months in his usual lodgings on the South Parade. The pauper quitted his service in May 1768, having resided about, four months previous thereto in Furnival's Inn, but Furnival's Inn is an extraparochial place, and no township or vill within the meaning of 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12, and no removal has ever been made to it.-BY THE COURT. It appears that Furnival's Inn is not a vill within the 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12. The hiring there lays a foundation for a settlement, but none can be gained there. You must look back to the last place, except Furnital's Inn, where forty days were served; that place is Bath; and it being now settled that settlements may be gained at watering places, the settlement was gained there notwithstanding the Scarborough case*.-Order of sessions, quashing the order of removal to Aston, confirmed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 433. Caldecot's Cases, 403.

If the servant having performed part of his service with the original master, be permitted by such master to serve out the remainder of his time with another person, this shall be deemed a good service.—Thus, in the K. v. Ivinghoe, Ea. 4 Geo. 1, the pauper was hired in the parish of Ivinghoe, by one Knight, to serve him as a shepherd for one year; he entered upon his service and served half a year, and was paid his Wages for that half year. The master then let the farm to one Smith, and the pauper lived the residue of the year with Smith in the farm, who at the year's end paid him the other half year's ages. Knight, the first master, when he left the farm never told the pauper he was no more his servant, nor were there any transactions between them two towards dissolving the contract; neither did the pauper ever make any new contract with Smith for the last half-year.-By Pratt Ch. J. and THE COURT. This is a good settlement in Ivinghoe; for if a master lend his servant to a neighbour for a week, or any longer time, and he goes accordingly, and does such work as his neigh-' bour sets him about; yet all this while he is in the first master's service, and may reasonably be said to be doing his busi Bess and here being no new contract, it is carrying on the service of the first master; and the second master paying the last half year's wages, does not alter the case; for the contract not being dissolved, he might have brought an action against

See the cases of the K. v. Alton, and the Ky. Bath Easton, in p.' 145, 148.

the first master. 1 Strange, 90. 1 Sess. Caş. -121.2. Cas. Selt. & Rem. 109.

So in the K. v. Beccles, Ea. 17 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired at Mi. huelmas to a blacksmith in Lowestoft, for one whole year, for the wages of 31. He entered upon his said service on the Michaelmas-day, and continued his said service until the Michaelmas following; when he again let himself for another year to his said master, and continued about ten weeks, when he and his master parted. It appeared that the pauper, within the year, worked, with his master's consent, for a week, with one Lincoln, as a journeyman blacksmith; and with the like consent, with one Lawes, for a fortnight; and at some times, not exceeding twenty-four hours at any one time, nor above three days in the whole, within the said year, with his master's consent, did go off to sea, in a fishing-boat.' It was agreed between him and his master, at the time of such absence, that he should have all the wages he then earued, deducting for such absence, a proportion out of his aforesaid wages of 3/.; and this deduction was accordingly made.--THE SESSIONS were of opinion, that the pauper had not gained any legal settlement al the parish of Lowestoft aforesaid, by virtue of the aforesaid service. By Lee Ch. J. The whole absence of the present patt per in the first year was just three weeks and three days, and that by the consent of his master. Now it appears that the parish of Lowestoft have had all that the words or the intention of the act of parliamcut require; for there was a clear hiring for a year and taking in the ten weeks of the second year, i service for more than a year. Neither is it necessary that the service be with the same person: it is sufficient if it be with the successor in the farm, or the assignee. For service by the mas ter's consent, with another person, is a service of the master Nay, if it had been without the master's consent, yet theabsenc had been dispensed with, by the master's thus receiving hin again. The three other judges concurred in opiniony that thi was no dissolution of the contract, but a mere lending of the ser vice of his servant. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 230.

So a service with the executor of a master for the remainde of the year, will be sufficient to gain a settlement. Thus in th K. v. Ladoek, Ed. 15 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired for a yea in Ludock. His master died within the year. Upon the deat of the master, his executor asked the pauper, if he was willin to serve him for the remainder of the year; the pauper agree to it, and thereupon went with and served the said exécutor i St. Enculer, during the remainder of the year.Tne- Coun were clearly of opinion, that this was a settlement in Enoder They held it no new contract. The executor was the fëpre sentative of the testator; and only asked the servant if he wa willing to continue the former contract. The contraet was no determined and dissolved-by the death of the master. The ser vant was obliged to serve the executor; and the executor to pa