Page images

present certificate persons from bringing a charge upon the parishes into which they came by certificate. How can it be imagined, then, that another man's appreutice should gain a settlement by serving him in that parisli, when his own apprena úce is made incapable of doing so ? The other julges eine curred, and the whole court were unabiinously or opinion, that the pauper gained no settlement in Romsey. Burrua's Seit. Cas. 010.

30 il an apprentice to a certificate-person be assigned to a second master in the same parish, he cannot gain a seitlemcat in that parish hy serving the second master, though the second master is a legal parishioner there. Thus in the kiv. Hinckley, Tr. 31 Gro. 3, the pauper was born at frow'esworth (where his father was settled), and at nine years old was bound a parish-appreatice in Hinckley, to a person who was residing there under a certificate from Copson. The paaper after serva ing part of his time, was assigned to a legal parishioner of Hinckley, under an agreement, by which such second master was to pay one shilling a week to the former, and which was paid accordingly. He served the second master in llinckley above forty days before he left him. The question in this case was, Whetherany settlement was obtained by the appren. tice, by his service under his second master, who was a parishia joner of Hinckley; a parish to which his first master by whunn be was assigned had been certificated ? And by lord kenyor Ch. J. who delivered the opinion of the court. The apprenúce hath not acquired any settleinent by the sorvice under the indentore with the second master in llinckley, although he did 105 reside there under the certificate. This opinion which we have formed, proceeds principally on the words of the statute of Anne, and the view with which it was passeu. By the general tenor of the certificate act, persons settled in one parisli, bringing a crrtificate with them into another, have a right to remain there until they become chargeable; and the parish to which soch certificate is granted, cannot refuse to receive them. But the mischief was that though the certificated persons themselves could not gain a settlement in that parish, yet they were the means of conferring settlements on others, by taking servants and apprentices, which was thought to be a great hardship on those parishes, who were bound to receive there under the certificate. Therefore, to provide against that inconvenience, the 12 Ann. stat. 1. c. 18. was passed *. And that act having expressly provided, that perauns bound apprentices to certificated-men shall not so by virtue of such * apprenticeship, indenture, or bindling, grin a setilement in

sach parish, it is necessary that the binding should be sich "as would be capable of conferring a settlement by service " under the original master in that place, otherwise nu set

* Scop. 39 supra.

tlement can be gained there by virtue thereof." For the legislature intended, that no act whatever of this sort done by a certificated man should help to bind the parish. Therefore, as the statute of Anne was passed for the express protection of the certificated parish, and as the words of the act are very particular and positire in favour of that parish, we see no reason to restrain the meaning of them to a service with the original master. 4 Term Rep. 371.

So if a man and his wife come into a parish by certificate, and upon the death of the woman, the man marries a second wise, the certificate shall extend to the second wife ; and if she take an apprentice, after her husband's death, such arprentice can gain no settlement by a service and residence in a certificated parish. Thus in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Hampton, Ea. 33 Geo. 3, a man and his wife came to reside in Hampton under a certificate from the parish of Thuckam ; bis wife dying, he married a second, and then he died, leaving such second wifc him surviving; the widow continued to reside in Hampton, and at a period considerably subsequent to his death, took a poor girl of the parish of si. Martin's in the Fields, as an apprentice; which apprentice served her in the parish of Hampton, for upwards of forty days: the mistress then died. By lord Kenyon Ch. J. The question is, Whether the apprentice acquires a settlement by a residence of above forty days in this parish, with the widow of the person so certificated ? and I am of opinion that she did not. It has been decided, that a parish certificate extends to those who were not originally included in it as members of the family at the time when it was given ; for it has been held, that a child born after the giving of the certificate is included in it, and consequently cannot acquire a settlement in that parish by hiring and service.* Now in point of reason, I cannot distinguish this case from that : for here the second wife was ingrafted in it, and formed part of the family of the pater familias, and beyond all doubt, the certificate extended to her, If the womah, therefore, resided under the certificate, the paupcr could gain no settlement by serving an apprenticeship to her there.- Ashhurst J. not having been present at the argument, gave no opinion.Buller J. was of a different opinion, and said, This case strikes me in a very different light from what it does my Lord Chief Justice. I consider the certificate operat. ing in favour of the man and his family, as long as any of the members of it remained part of his family: but when the hus. band died, the wife was no longer a part of his family, but might have been removed back to his parish ; and consequently any person, serving with her there as an apprentice after that time, might gain a settlement by such apprenticeship. Grose

* This was determined in the “K. v. Cherborne,” for a reference to wbich, see the Table of Cases at the end of this work.

J. agreed with lord Kenyon, and said, The widow, at the time of this man's death, was part of his family, and contioned therefore protected by the certificate, until she should marry again, or desert it by going to reside in ano. tšer parish. This furaishes an answer to a question put at the bar

, Whether, if she married again, she could have gained a settlement in that parish with her husband, or could bare been removed, as resident under the certificate ? To which I answer, That the certificate would, in that case, have been at an end ; because she would bave gained a new settlement, by means of her new husband, that which was bis

, being by her marriage communicated to her. And when it is said, that she resided under the husband's certificate only during his life, I say it is otherwise; she is resident, as the child was resident; and this has been determined to be as part of her husband's family, as well after, as before his death : considering her therefore, as part of her husband's family, she came into the parish, or was resident there, by means or licence of the certificate ; of course her apprentice can gain do settle. mest by service under the indenture.-Order of sessions, quashing the order of removal to St. Martin's in the Fields, quashed. 5 Term Rep. 266. Nolan's Rep. 239.

“ "]


justices. 6.1.

IV. Settlement by hiring and service. By 13 & 14 Car. 8. c. 12, it shall be lawful, upon com. Statutes plaint by the churchwardens or overseers to any justice with. in forty days after any person shall come to settie in any * tepement under the value of ten pounds, for any two justices 9 Qu.) by their warrant to remove such person to such pacid where he was last legally settled, either as a native, householder

, sojourner, apprentice, or servant for the space of forty days at least, unless he gave sufficieat security for the discharge of the parish, to be allowed by the said

Which forty days continuance of such person in a parish * to make a settlement, shall be reckoned, not from the time for his coming to inhabit, but from the time of the publica* tion of a notice in writing, which he is required to deliver, f of the house of his abode, and the number of his family, to: " the churchwarden or overseer; which said notice in writing

the chorch warden or overseer is to read, or cause to be read, publicly in the church or chapel of the parish or town, 'mmeliately after divine service on the next Lord's day.' 1 Jal

. 2. c. 17. 8. 3. 3 Will. & Aar, c. 11, s. 3. ' But by : Will

. & Mar. c. 11, if any UNMARRIED person, * not having child or children, shall be lawfully hired into ang parish town for one year, (and shall continue and

abide in the same service during the space of one whole year. 68 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30.) such service shall be adjudged and 6 deemed a good settlement therein, though no such notice

in writing be delivered and published as is before require 8. 6..

• But by 9 & 10 Iill. 3. c. 11, no person who shall co into any parish by CERTIFICATE, shall be adjudged by any "whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in such

rish, unless he shall bona fide take a lease of a tenement "the value of ten pounds, or shall execute some annual “fice in such parish (and of course not by a hiring and se rice).'

And by 12 Ann. st. 1. c. 18, if any person shall be a h el servant with any person who did come into, or shall siile in any purish, tuionship, or place, by means or license o certificate, and not afterwards having gained a legal settleme in such parish, township, or pluce ; such servant shall not g uny settlement in such parish, township or pluce, by reuson such hiring or serving therein ; but shall hare his settleme in such parish, township or place, as if he had not been an hi cd scrvant to such person.

Also by 33 Geo. 3. c. 51, no person who shall be a hit servant lo any person who did come into or shall reside in a parish, township, or place, under u certificate from a benefit ciety*, and not ofterwards having gained a legal settlem in such parish, township, or place, shall guin any settlement such parish, township, or place, by reason of such hiring serving thercin ; but all such servants shall have their sett ments in such parish, tornship, or place, as if they had been hireil to such person as aforesaid.

8. 24. Also by 13 Geo. 2. c. 29, no servant employed in the fou: LIM HOSPITAL shall gain any setilement in the parish uh such hospital is situated, by virtue of such hiring and serv

8. 2.

S. 7.

and by 9 Geo. 3. C. 31, no person employed in the magi LEN HOSPITAL as a hired servant, shall by reason of such s vice, guin any settlement in the parish where the hospital is tuated.

S. 8.

What persons

According to the words of the statute 3 Will. and M nuy acquire c.ll, the persons capable of acquiring a settlement by hiring setulements hy, service, are unmarried persons not having child or childte

hired serving fui a

but a ridorer, although he has children living, may gai year: settlement by liiring and service, provided those children

emancipated, and have gained settlements in their own righ
Thus in Antony v. Curdigan, Ea. 12 Will. 3. a widower ha
daughter who was married into another parish and there sett
afterwards the widower hired himself for a year, and served
y car.--By the Court. It is a good scttlement ; for it is
in the meaning, though it is not within the letter of the stat

* sectiile FriexdLY SOCIETies in volj. and sections 17, 18, 19 !1 & 2oof this statute 33 Geo. 3, 6.54, under the head Lenors

For this man is not married ; neither has he any child or chil. dren to the purpose intended by the act, viz. that can be chargeable. It was therefore held, that this widoccer was a person who might gain a settlement by virtue of hiring and service. Foriescue, 309. Foley 131.

But a widower having a son, who has no settlement of his own, cannot gain a settlement by hiring and service for a year though the son be hired for a year on the same day when the faa ther is hireil, and serve that year.–Thus in the K. v. New Fo. rest, Ilil. 31 Geo. 3 a widower hired himself for a year in the township of New Forest, and served a year there accordingly; and on the same day that he so hired himself, his son, then about sisteen years of age, and having gained no previous set. tle beat in his own right, hired himself for a year in the town. ship of Elerton, which he served accordingly. It was contended, that though the father had a son, who was not emancipated at the time when he was hired, yet that as the son was also bired on the same day with the father, the settlement which the soo acquired by the service under that-birins, miglit have relation back to the first day of the service : and in that way of considering the question, the father might be deemed to be an touarried man, not having child or children at the time whea he was hired in New Forest.- Buit hy lord Kenyon, Ch. J. and the Court. It is impossible to support the orders. The con. struction which the court has put upon the statute of Il'ill. and Bler. is, that though the persons hired have children, yet if they have gainel settlements for themselves, distinct from the father's, the statute will not prevent him acquiring a settlement by serving a year under that hiring ; but in this case the son *K not separated from the father, when the latter was hired he had gained no settlement for himself: the son indeed did on the sape day enter into a contract, which might or might not have been completed ; and which when completed, wonld confer a settlement on the son; but at the time when the father entered into the relation of servant at New Forest, the son formed a part of his family. 5 Term Rep. 178.

And a pauper placed by the parish with a parishioner, pon an agreement between the latter and the parish oilicers, to find board, washing and lodging for the piu per at soinuch per week, and that the pauper was to do wiat he was set about, does Dot constitute the relation of master and servent between such parishioner and the pauper, so as to enable the lutter to gain a settlement, as by hiring and service, for the relation of master and servant does not in such case exist : it is a mere contract with the parish oslicers for the maintenance of the pauper, who have no authority to bire him ont to another ; and the contiguance with the party aftır the parish allowance is with. drawn, without any contract as between master and servant, will be considered as a waitup of charity. The K. v. Kichintul. bajerior. Ev. Tir. 0620.3. i Ter. Rep. 173 9.n Rep. 375.

« PreviousContinue »