said.—The question was, Whether the pauper was entitled to a derivative settlement, as part of her father's family, in the parish of St. Columb? which depended upon another question, viz. Whether she was emancipated from her father's family at the time when he acquired such settlement? And in support of the position that she was not, it was in substance argued as follows: That the court had never gone further than to say, that when a child has quitted his father's family, without any intention of returning, as by marrying, and becoming the head of a distinct family, or by contracting an engagement incompatible with the idea of pupiiage, as in the case of the soldier, or by gaining a settlement of his own, it shall be considered as an emancipation; but that all the cases establish this position, that when the child is in the habit of seeking protection in the parents' family, and only leaves it occasionally, or for a particular purpose, with an intention of returning, then such child is not emancipated.' That therefore neither the age of the child, nor the fact of en tering into the service of another, is any further material than as they may form ingredients to judge of the intention of returning, at the time of quitting the father's family: and here 'the intention of returning was manifested by the very act of returning as soon as the purpose for which she quitted her * father had ceased,' especially as the service was in its nature but a temporary one, and not entered upon with a view of gain. ing a settlement for herself.--By lord Kenyon Ch. J. The mere circumstance of a son's attaining the age of twenty-one is not an emancipation so as to prevent his having a derivative settlement gained by his father afterwards, if the son continue to live with the father; for if the son, with unbroken continuance, remain with, and be a member of the father's family, he is not emancipated: so if a child, under the age of twenty-one, leaves his father's home, and is thereby is a manner sovered from his father's family, and returns to his father during a state of papílige, during which time policy requires that the child should be under the protection of his father, he must be con sidered as incorporated with his father's family, unless he has gained a distinct settlement ofhis own, or has become the head of a family himself; but if the child after a state of pupilage, sever himself from his father's family, he cannot afterwards ( be incorporated with it.' In this case, this woman was above the age of twenty-one; she had contracted the relation of servant with another family; she was out of her father's family; she was under no other controul to him than that arising from moral obligation and gratitude; and I cannot see how she could afterwards be deemed to be incorporated with the father's family. The role to be extracted from the case is this:

If

the child be separated from the parents, and, without marrying or obtaining any setal ment for himself, return to them again during the age of pupilage, he is to all intents a part` of his father's family, and his settlement will vary with that of his father: but if, when that time arrives when, in estima

tion of law, the child wants no further protection from the 'father, the child removes from the father's family, he is not, 'for the purpose of a derivative settlement, to be deemed part

of that family:' this rule will reconcile all the cases, and will be found to be an intelligible one.-Ashurst J. When a child becomes of age, it is optional in him either to continue with his parents, or not, as he pleases. He is then his own master; and if he leave his father's house, and put himself under some other controul, this is a kind of public notification that he means to leave his father's family; and if afterwards the ther acquire a new settlement, it cannot be communicated to the son, because he has ceased to be part of his father's family. In the present case, the pauper was clearly severed from her father's family when the father gained a settlement in St. Columb, and consequently she is settled at Roach, where the father was settled before.-Grose J. The question is, Whether the pauper is to be considered as part of her father's family here the daughter, being no longer in a state of pupilage, left her father's house, and went out into the world in service; and the question is, Whether that amounts to an emancipation? The present case is then resolved into this, Is this the case of a child going out into the world, intending to separate herself from her father's family? Being of the age of twenty-two, she went into another family, in the situation of a servant, and I consider this case, as stating it, that she was hired into that family; for she received wages: and if she had continued as a wet nurse for a year, it would have furnished evidence of a general hiring, and then she would have gained a settlement. Had she thus served for a year, we should have considered that she was severing herself from her father's family; and her intention of so doing cannot be varied by her not having served for the period of a year.-Lawrence J. Here the daughter, being of age, put herself out of her father's controul, and therefore she ceased to be part of his family; he could not recall her. If by being a soldier after the son was of age, he by that ceased to be under the controul of his father*, in this case, by the pauper's putting herself from under her father's controul, after she had attained twenty-one, the relation between her and her father's family ceased. If after such a service as this, the daughter had returned to her father before she was of age, she should have continued as part of her father's family; but not returning till after, she can no longer be considered as part of his family. This rule is perfectly intelligible, and there will be no difficulty in adopting it in future.Order of sessions confirmed. 6 Term Rep. 247.

And though a child be emancipated by any of the means aforesaid, yet, unless he gains a settlement in his own right, he

* See the case of the K. v. Walpole St. Peter's, p. 24 infra.

shall have the settlement which the parent had at the period of emancipation. In the K. v.Cold Ashton, Hil. 31 Geo. 2. A man with his wife and their son went from Woodchester with a certificate to Cold Ashton; the wife afterwards, upon the death of her father, became possessed of a tenement in Cold Ashton, upon which she and her husband, together with her son, then five years old, entered and lived: the son lived with his father and mother in the said tenement till about eight or nine years before the order of removal, when he married the present pauper, his now widow, and by her had the four children now removed: after his marriage he lived with his wife and children in Cold Ashton, separate and apart from his father and mother, until his death; but it was not stated that he had during his life-time gained any settlement for himself. One question was, Whether the son, notwithstanding his emancipation by marrying and living apart from his father, did not gain a derivative settlement in this case from his father, he not having gained any settlement for himself? And on this point of the case lord Mansfield said, that children of all parents must have the settlement of the father till they acquire one for themselves. Here the son is not stated to have acquired one of his own; therefore he had such as he derived from his father; and his father had gained one in Cold Ashton. There is no ground here to say that the son must necessarily be taken to have left his family before the time that the father acquired a full and complete settlement in Cold Ashton for himself; and therefore I think the sessions' order, which fixes the pauper upon Cold Ashton, ought to be confirmed. Dennison J. There can be no doubt, that as the father gained a settlement by this estate, his son will do so too; for the children derive their settlement from the father. Wilmot J. (Foster J. being absent) concurred. Order of sessions affirmed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 344.

So also a son, who at fifteen years of age binds himself apprentice for four years, serves out his time and works about the country in the way of his business, but who goes to his father's house whenever he pleases, keeps his holiday cloaths there, and considers it as his home, is not emancipated from his father's family. The K. v. Halifax, Hil. 15 Geo. 3. The father of the pauper went with a certificate from Skircoat to Halifax, where the pauper was born; and when he the pauper was about fifteen years of age, he bound himself an apprentice, by indenture, to a stuff weaver, of Halifax, for four years; and served his master there, for that time. After the expiration of his apprenticeship, when he was about nineteen years old, the father took a farm of twelve pounds a year in Warley, and resided there several years. The pauper after his father went to Warley, worked about the country, as a stuff weaver; but came to his father's house in Warley whenever he pleased: and kept his holiday cloaths there; and considered it as his own home, till he was about twenty years and nine months old; when he mar ried. But when he came to his father's house, he paid for

what he had, and was his own master to go and work for hims self wherever he pleased. The court thought that the son could not be considered as emancipated, or independent of, or separated from his father; he went to his house when he pleas ed, and had cloaths there. Aston J. said, that where a son is become independant of his father's family, or emancipated from it, he will not acquire a settlement where his father goes to reside; but if he remain part of his father's family, he will acquiro a derivative settlement where his father goes and settles. The distinction was well laid down, he said, in the Bugden case. And he observed, that, in the case of 'alpole St. Peter's, the son had been four years a soldier, and was emancipated from his father's family, and had ceased to be part of it. Burrow's Sett. Cas. S06.

So nine or ten years residence of a child by the direction of his father in a friend's house, for the purpose of support, is not to be considered an emancipation, so as to prevent his following his father's settlement. The K. v. Tottington Lower End, Ea. 23 Geo. 3. Two justices by an order removed a man, his wife and four children, from Broughton to Tottington. And the sessions on appeal confirm the order, and state, that the pauper is the son of a person, who at the time of the pauper's birth was settled in Tottington. When he was seven years old his mother died; and he and his father went to live with the uncle in Pilkington: the father boarded; but the uncle out of charity to the pauper's father, took the pauper, and provided for him meat, drink, lodging, and clothes. Eigh teen months after, the father went to reside in Ratcliffe; but the pauper continued with the unele till he was ten years old; about which time having a quarrel with his uncle's wife, in his absence, he went to his father's house, and staid a fortnight; but the father not having a loom to accommodate him as a weaver, desired him to return to his uncle, which he ac. cordingly did; and the uncle taught him to weave in the day, and sent him to school in the evenings: the uncle provided him with meat and clothes and received the money he earned: be staid with the uncle on these terms until sixteen ; but from his first going to his uncle to that time, he now and then went to see his father on a holiday and sometimes staid all night. When the pauper was fourteen years old, his father came into Pilkington, and gained a new settlement; the panper considered his father's house as his proper home, because he was his father; and that he could have gone to him when he pleased, and his father would have received him. The father thought himself obliged to provide for the pauper, whenever the uncle turned him away. And he said, that if the uncle had gone to live at a great distance from him he would not have suffered the pauper to have gone with him. In support of the orders, it was contended that the pauper could not be considered as part of his father's family at the time the father lived af Pilkington : that he was completely separated from that family: that, not having

in nine years been absent more than three weeks from his uncle's house, it must be taken that he was domesticated there: that he also went, it was true, occasionally to his father's for a short space of time, as he might have done to a friend; but that such visits afforded no sert of evidence where was his house; and that he was able to maintain himself and did so; and that therefore he ought to be considered as emancipated.-But, by lord Mansfield. The pauper considered himself as part of his father's family, and the father considered him in the same light. When a man acquires a settlement, he acquires it for himself and his family. There is no reason to say this boy was no part of his father's family. The uncle was under no obligation to do any thing for him, or to keep him an hour; and the boy in point of fact, on every disagreement weat to his father's house as his home; and he received him as he was bound to do. I see no ground for considering this as an emancipation. The other judges concurring both orders quashed. Caldecot's Cases, 251.

So a boy hired out by his father several years successively, and never living with him, but the father receiving his wages, is not emancipated; but continues to follow the father's set. tlement acquired after the hiring out.-The K. v. Stretton, Hil. 25 Geo. 3. The pauper's father came to Tutbury under a a certificate from Stretton: the pauper, when thirteen, was hired by his father to a person for fifty-one weeks, which he served, after which he was hired to another for the like period, which he served; and was then hired to another person for fifty-one weeks again, which he served. At the expiration thereof, he made some agreement with his master, without the knowledge of his father, for another fifty-one weeks; but the father being informed of it applied to the master, and said he should not serve unless he would raise his wages, which the master agreed to, and then paid the father earnest. The pauper con tinued in his last service all the time, except a fortnight or three weeks; when being ill, he went to his father's, and when he recovered immediately returned into his service. He was afterwards hired by his father to another man, for fifty-one weeks; but served only a month. The father received all the wages (except what the pauper himself received from his master for pocket money), and found him clothes and washing therewith. The pauper is nineteen, and never lived with his father after the first hiring out, which was at Michaelmas 1780. His father, at Lady-day 1781, took lands of ten pounds per annum and upwards,which he rented one year, and all that time resided in Tetbury. Lord Mansfield: This boy was let out by the father, who received his wages and washed for him.--Buller, J. All the cases say, that the pauper hired himself, for which purpose he must be emancipated, which means set at liberty, and that can only be by the joint consent of father and son: the father here exercises his authority in every instance: when the last agreement is made, the father actually hires him: when the pauper makes a bargain with his master, the father 66 says, No, *he shall not serve you unless you give more wages," and VOL. IV.

D