prevent 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 apprentice should gain a settlement by serving him in that parish, when his own appren tice is made incapable of doing so? The other judges encurred, and the whole court were unanimously of opinion, that the pauper gained no settlement in Romsey. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 640.

So if an apprentice to a certificate-person be assigned to a second master in the same parish, he cannot gain a settlement in that parish by serving the second master, though the second master is a legal parishioner there. Thus in the K, v. Hinckley, Tr. 31 Gen. 3, the pauper was born at Frowlesworth (where his father was settled), and at nine years old was bound a parish-apprentice in Hinckley, to a person who was residing there under a certificate from Copson. The pauper after serving 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 Hinckley above forty days before he left him. The question in this case was, Whether any settlement was obtained by the apprentice, by his service under his second master, who was a parishjoner of Hinckley; a parish to which his first master by whom be was assigned had been certificated? And by lord Kenyon Ch. J. who delivered the opinion of the court. The apprentice hath not acquired any settlement by the service under the indenture with the second master in Hinckley, although he did not 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 passed. By the general tenor of the certificate act, persons settled in one parish, bringing a certificate with them into another, have a right to remain there until they become chargeable; and the parish to which such 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 them 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 persons bound apprentices to certificated-men shall not by virtue of such "apprenticeship, indenture, or binding, gain a settlement in “such parish, it is necessary that the binding should be such "as would be capable of conferring a settlement by service under the original master in that place, otherwise no set

* See p. 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 positive 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 wife, the certificate shall extend to the second wife; and if she take an apprentice, after her husband's death, such apprentice 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 ; his wife dying, he married a second, and then he died, leaving such second wife 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 St. 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 1 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 woman, therefore, resided under the certificate, the pauper 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 which, 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 continued therefore protected by the certificate, until she should marry again, or desert it by going to reside in another parish. This furnishes 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 have 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 have gained a new settlement, by means of her new husband, that which was his, 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 no settlement 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.

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 within forty days after any person shall come to settle in any tenement under the value of ten pounds, for any two justices (Q) by their warrant to remove such person to such parish 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 sufficient security for the discharge of the parish, to be allowed by the said 'justices. s. 1.

Which forty days continuance of such person in a parish to make a settlement, shall be reckoned, not from the time of his coming to inhabit, but from the time of the publication of a notice in writing, which he is required to deliver, of the house of his abode, and the number of his family, to: the churchwarden or overseer; which said notice in writing the churchwarden or overseer is to read, or cause to be read, publicly in the church or chapel of the parish or town, immediately after divine service on the next Lord's day.' 1 Jac. 2. c. 17. s. 3. 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11. s. 3.

But by 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11, if any UNMARRIED PERSON, not having child or children, shalt be lawfully hired into any parish town for one year, (and shall continue and abide in the same service during the space of one whole year. 8 & 9 Will. 3. c. 30.) such service shall be adjudged and deemed a good settlement therein, though no such notice

What persons may acquire setilements by being hired and serving for a year.

in writing be delivered and published as is before required.

8. G..

But by 9 & 10 Will 3. c. 11, no person who shall com into any parish by CERTIFICATE, shall be adjudged by any a • whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in such p rish, unless he shall bonú fide take a lease of a tenement • the value of ten pounds, or shall execute some annual o 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 hi ed servant with any person who did come into, or shall r side in any parish, township, or place, by means or license of certificate, and not afterwards having gained a legal settleme in such parish, township, or place; such servant shall not ga any settlement in such parish, township or place, by reason "such hiring or serving therein; but shall have his settleme in such parish, township or place, as if he had not been an h ed servant to such person. s. 2.

Also by 33 Geo. 3. c. 54, no person who shall be a hir servant to any person who did come into or shall reside in a parish, township,or place, under a certificate from a benefit. ciety, and not afterwards having gained a legal settlem in such parish, township, or place, shall gain any settlement such parish, township, or place, by reason of such hiring serving therein; but all such servants shall have their set ments in such parish, township, or place, as if they had been hired to such person as aforesaid. s. 24.

Also by 13 Geo. 2. c. 29, no servant employed in the FOU LING HOSPITAL shall gain any settlement in the parish wh such hospital is situated, by virtue of such hiring and serv

s. 7.

And by 9 Geo. 3. c. 31, no person employed in the MAG LEN HOSPITAL as a hired servant, shall by reason of such vice, guin any settlement in the parish where the hospital tuated.

S. 8.

According to the words of the statute 3 Will. and c.11, the persons capable of acquiring a settlement by hiring service, are unmarried persons not having child or child but a widower, although he has children living, may ga settlement by hiring and service, provided those children emancipated, and have gained settlements in their own rig Thus in Antony v. Cardigan, Ea. 12 Will. 3. a widower \ daughter who was married into another parish and there set afterwards the widower hired himself for a year, and serve year.-BY THE COURT. It is a good settlement; for it is in the meaning, though it is not within the letter of the sta

*Sce title FRIENDLY SOCIETIES in vol.ii. and sections 17, 18, 1 21 & 26 of this statute 33 Geo. 3, c. 54, under the head REMOV THE POOR.

For this man is not married; neither has he any child or children to the purpose intended by the act, viz. that can be chargeable. It was therefore held, that this widower was a person who might gain a settlement by virtue of hiring and service. Fortescue, 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 father is hired, and serve that year. Thus in the K. v. New Forest, Hil. 34 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 sixteen years of age, and having gained no previous settlemeat in his own right, hired himself for a year in the township of Ellerton, 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 hired on the same day with the father, the settlement which the son acquired by the service under that hiring, might 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 unmarried man, not having child or children at the time when he was hired in New Forest.-But by 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 Will. and Mar. is, that though the persons hired have children, yet if they have gained 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 was not separated from the father, when the latter was hired he had gained no settlement for himself: the son indeed did on the same day enter into a contract, which might or might not have been completed; and which when completed, would 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. 478.

And a pauper placed by the parish with a parishioner, upon buzan agreement between the latter and the parish officers, to find board, washing, and lodging for the pauper at so much per week, and that the pauper was to do what he was set about, does not constitute the relation of master and servant between such parishioner and the pauper, so as to enable the latter 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 officers for the maintenance of the pauper, who have no authority to hire him out to another; and the 'continuance with the party after the parish allowance is withdrawn, without any contract as between master and servant, will be considered as, a matter of charity. The K. v. Rickingħail. inferior. Ea. Ter. 46 Geo. 3. 7 Ter. Rep. 473 3 Smith's Rep. 375.