other service, but continued with her master till the 4th of June following; on the evening of which day he paid her the whole year's wages, and gave her half a guinea over, and the same evening left London and went for Manchester: he did not know in the morning that he should leave London in the evening, or even before the expiration of the year's service: but his going was quite a casual matter, and depended upor circumstances which he could not at that time foresee: that i he had remained in London, he should have continued the pau per in his service, as she was a good servant; the pauper wen into a new service two days after her master left London. I was insisted, that the master, having left his place of abod with a declared intention never to return, and having on the account discharged his servants before the end of the year, must be taken as a complete dissolution of the contract: th though at first it might be considered only as a dispensation the service for the remainder of the year, yet still as that dispe sation was in favour of the servant, she might waive it and d solve the contract: that she must be taken as having done here; or the pauper would be gaining two settlements at t same time under different contracts; which would be absurd. But by lord Mansfield. The only question is, Whether t servant continued bona fide in her service during the wh year? To be sure, there is a distinction between excepti from the contract, and dispensations of the service; but the case be of the latter description, and bonâ fide, it can ma no difference when the servant is engaged, or where; or w ther the service be in the same or another occupation. W then does she quit the service? At the desire and for the c venience of her master, who gave her half a guinea_beyond] wages, as an equivalent, no doubt, for her board. It was at dental, and a favour to the master. The case of the K. v. Inhabitants of Richmond, is full as strong as this; for ther new servant came into the very place which the pauper vacated upon a dispensation of his service. Fraud viti every thing; but the justice as well as reason of the thing here with the settlement. Suppose she had come from a tant country, and had no other settlement, shall she lose only one, which she deserves so well?-Willes, Ashhurst : Buller Justices concurred. Cald. Cas. 48. So in the K. v. St. Philip, in Birmingham, Tr. 28 Geo. 3, pauper was originally settled in Birmingham; but subseqe to her settlement there, was hired for a year in the parish of wick; where she served till within eight days of the end of the te when, on account of some difference, she gave her misi warning that she would leave her service at the end of the y The mistress, on having hired another servant, by reason some impatient behaviour of the pauper, discharged her f the service, but paid her her fall wages, which she accepted, accordingly quitted the service, and left the parish eight before the year ended; bat she said she would have served her year if her mistress would have let her.-BY THE COURT. This was not an absolute dissolution of the contract. For though it be true that an agreement between the master and servant, before the expiration of the year, to put an end to the service, will defeat the settlement; yet if it be not a voluntary agreement between the parties to put an end to the contract, as if the master fraudulently turn away the servant with a view of preventing his gaining a settlement, or wrongfully discharge him before the end of the year, that will not defeat the servant's settlement. Now in the present case, I think that this was a mere wrongful act of the mistress, which was submitted to, but no agreed to by the servant. It appears that the mistress, on account of the servant's behaviour, turned her away, but paid her the whole wages, on which she went away. But we cannot infer from that, that it was by agreement; on the contrary, as far as we can collect from the case, it is to be inferred that the servant went away rather in consequence of the wrongful dismission by the mistress, than by her own consent: for she was desirous of serving the whole year. On the whole, therefore, this must be considered as a dispensation with the service; and that the pauper gained a settlement in Birmingham. 2 Term Rep. 624. So in the K. v. St. Andrew's Holborn, Tr. 28 Geo. 3, the pauper being settled in St. Andrew, was hired as a nursery mail in St. Margaret's Westminster, for a year; and continued in the said service till within four or five days of the expiration of the year, when her master becoming a bankrupt, and the messengers taking possession of the house, her mistress discharged her, paying her the whole year's wages.-THE COURT Were clearly of opinion, that the bankruptcy of the master did not dissolve the contract of hiring without the servant's consent; and that the pauper gained a settlement in St. Margaret's Westmister. 2 Term Rep. 637. So where a master being obliged to leave his house, some days before the end of the year, for which he had hired a ser. vant, told the latter that he had no further occasion for her serrices, and paid her the whole year's wages; this was held to be a dispensation of the service for the rest of the year, the master being otherwise willing to have kept her, and she unwilling to leave his service-this was decided in The K. v. St. Mary Lambeth, Ea. Ter. 39 Geo. 3, which was as follows,-the Sessions had quashed an order of two justices for the removal pauper, from St. Mary Lambeth, to St. Martin's in the of the fields, subject to the opinion of the court in the following case, ther pauper, a single woman, settled in the parish of St. Martin's 15th of Jan. 1797, hired herself to one Serle of St. Paul's Covent Garden, for a year from the 18th of that month, at the wages of 7 guineas; she went into his service on the 18th of Jan, and continued in it until the 11th of Jan. following, when an information having been laid against her master for keeping a gaming house; he quitted his house, and told his ser vants (and the pauper amongst them) that he had no longer any 'occasion for their services, and then paid the pauper her whole ' year's wages; the master would have kept the pauper, but on account of his being Jo obliged to quit his house, and the pauper was unwilling to leave his service, she then left her mas'ter's house, and went to her sister's house, and did not engage Cherself in any new service, until after the year expired, though from the time that her wages were paid, she considered her. self at liberty to go when she pleased.' BY THE COURT, it must be taken that the servant was wrongfully turned away, the master could not continue any longer in his house, and the servant insisted on having her whole year's wages, and although she received all her wages, she was unwilling to leave the ser. vice: now if it be considered, that she was dismissed against her consent, there could be no dissolution of the contract by the consent of both parties-Order of sessions confirmed. 8 Ter. Rep. 236. And Ld. Kenyon, Ch. J. in the case of the K. v. St. Mary's Lambeth, Ea. Ter. 39 Geo. 3, expressed a wish that the justices at the sessions would find the fact, whether or not the parties put an end to the contract before the end of the year, without leaving it to the court, to draw the inference from the facts stated. 8 Ter. Rep. 240: But if a servant before the expiration of the year, request leave of the master to go into another place, to which he is hired and the master consents thereto, and pays him his whole year's wages, that is a dissolution of the contract, and prevents the gaining of a settlement. And where the servant is absent with the leave of the mas ter, he shall be settled in that parish where he sleeps the last night, provided he has served there forty days in the course of the year-Thus in the K. v. Undermilbeck, Mic. 33 Geo. 3, the pauper was, at the latter end of March or the begin ning of April, hired for a year to work as a waller. He entered upon his service, accordingly,and continued with his master till about the middle of December following; when his mas ter having little business to do, agreed that he might have leave of absence for six weeks, to work for himself wherever he pleas ed, allowing 15s. out of his yearly wages; the pauper then went to his father's house in Saurey, and continued there till the beginning of February; being absent from his service seven weeks, one week longer than he had leave for. His master about that time contracted, that he and the pauper would do some work in the parish of Pennington, and they accordingly entered upon their work; and the pauper continued to work with his master there above forty days, the same being till within about three or four days of the end of the term for which he was hired; when he went again to his father's house in Sawrey, with the master's consent, and whilst he so continu. ed in Sawrey, the year's service expired during all the time that the pauper worked with his master in Pennington, he slept Evidence of In respect to the evidence necessary to support the inferhiring and ser ence that there was a hiring for a year, where that fact can vice. only be collected from circumstances; the following cases have occurred-In the K. v. Holy Trinity in Warcham, Hil. 23 Geo. 3, the case stated, that it was proved, that the pauper's husband was born in the parish of Beer Regis in the county of Dorset; and it was also proved by the pauper, that her husband was abroad beyond sea, and had been so for two years past, if alive; that to her knowledge he lived in the capacity of an ostler, with a Mrs. Lee of the parish of the Holy Trinity in Wareham, some years since deceased, at her house there about two years, where she had seen him brew, but whether there was any agreement or hiring relating to such serrice, was not proved; but that she had heard her hus band say, he was settled in the parish of the Holy Trinity in Wareham-By lord Mansfield Ch. J. The sessions have drawn their conclusion, that he was hired, and I think they have done right.-Buller J. Though the evidence is slight, there is nothing to contradict it.-Willes and Ashhurst justices concurred. Caldecot's Cases, 141. In the K. v. Long Whatton, Mic. 34 Geo. 3, the case stated that the pauper was a lunatic. She had formerly acquired a settlement at Belton, by hiring and service. Afterwards in March 1780, she went to live with a Mrs. Lowdham at Diseworth to wait upon Mr. Lowdham who was poorly, and she continued there till Mr. Lowdham's death, which happened two er three years afterwards. On the day of her going to this service, she told her brother-in-law that she was hired till the following Michaelmas, with liberty to part on a month's wa ges, or a month's warning, and had received 2s. 6d. carnest. She made the same declaration to one Fisher; and at another time when her sister was just dead, and she was uneasy about her own situation, upon Fisher telling her she must be provided for somewhere, and asking her, if she knew where she belonged to, she said she belonged to Diseworth, where 'she had been hired and received 2s. 6d, earnest.' She made the same declaration to her brother-in-law; but to neither of them did she ever mention any second hiring to Mrs. Lowdham or any thing about her situation there, but what is mentioned above. Both her brother-in-law and Fisher, during the time of her being with Mrs. Lowdham, repeatedly saw the pauper waiting upon her, and acting as her servant.-The admission of the declarations of the pauper in evidence, was objected to; but the sessions received them, and were of opinion, upon the whole evidence, as well those declarations as the rest, that the pauper had gained a settlement at Diseworth.—And by lord Kenyon Ch. J. Independently of the declarations made by the pauper, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the jus tices in finding a hiring for a year in Diseworth; though the pauper was at first only hired till the Michaelmas following, yet she continued in the same service for three years. 5 Ter. Rep. 447. But the sessions must draw a conclusion from the evidence, and not leave it to the Court above to make the inferenceThus in the K. v. Lyth, Tr. 33 Geo. 3, the pauper was removed from Whitby to Lyth; the sessions on appeal confirmed the order, and stated the following case: On behalf of the respondents, it was proved, that the pauper was a legitimate child, and was born in Lyth. On behalf of the appellants, in order to shew a derivative settlement in the pauper from his father in a third township, it was proved that the pauper's father before his marriage, was a few days after Martinmas 1731, ⚫ seen and known to be in the service of one Champion of Barn. ་ by, as a servant in husbandry,' and was from time to time scen and known to act in that capacity with Champion at Barnby, for some time, upwards of a year.' The appellants then offered evidence, to prove that Champion, who is long since dead, had declared in his lifetime, that the pauper's father had been hired with him for a year; but the sessions were of opinion,that such evidence was not admissible; it was then also proposed to give evidence of declarations to the same effect, by the pauper's father, who is also dead, touching such hiring; but the court also refused to admit such evidence: whereupon the sessions, being of opinion that there was no evidence of an hiring for a year, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the court upon the propriety of rejecting the evidence of the declarations above offered; and also, whether, after rejecting such declarations, they had done right in refusing to infer the hiring, from the fact of service proved as above stated. When this case was called in the paper, lord Kenyon said, that the case was drawn up in too loose a manner for the Court to give any solemn judgment upon it; for upon some parts of it;' evidence was stated instead of facts; and the court were left to draw inferences, which the magistrates below ought to have |