« PreviousContinue »
If a married man agree conditionally to become the serrant of another, and before a definitive agreement takes place. the wise dies without issue, he will gaili a settlement by a hiring and service for a year-Thus in the K. 1. Bank Newion, Eu 31 Geo. 2, the paper, who was a married man, and settled at Bank Nezlon, on the 16th of February agreed with the son of Henry I'ilcock of Murton, to serve the said Ilenty Jilcock. for a year, from the 24th of the same month of February, at five guineas wages, in case the said Henry Wilcock should approvc the said terins ; tro days afterwards, viz. on the 18th of the same mouth of February, the paper's wife diell without issue. And on the 24th of the same month of February, the pauper, then having neither reife ror child, went to Lienry Wilcock in Marton, who asked him “ Upon what terms his son and “ he (the pauper) had agreed ;' the pauper stated the terms as above, and Ililcocle thereupon said, " That he did agree to the " same terms.” The pauper accordingly, on the said 24th of February, then having neither wije nor child, entered into the service of Itilcock, and served him in Murton aforesaid for a year. It was objected, that the hiring was on the 16th, and the wife did not die till the 18th ; so that the paper was not an unmarried person when he was hired. To this it was ao. swered, that the contract was not complete, but a mere pullity till the assent of the principal (the father) : for he had it in his power to disapprove. It was not binding till his assent was gi. ven; for the agent only acted under a limited authority. And when the principal did assent, the servant was unmarried.-By Lord Mansfield. It is clear that the hiring was on the 24th; for the father might have dissented from the conditional agreement made by his son on the 16th. And the man was unmar. ried on the 241h, when the father made the complete agreement with him.-—The three other judges declaring themselves to be of the same opinion, the settlement of the pauper was consequently held to be in Marion, by virtue of this hiring and service there. Burrow's Seit. Cas. 455.
And a marriage after the biring, and during the serrice, will not prevent the servant from gaining a set:levient... Thus in Farringdon v. Iitty, Ea. 1 Ann, a servant hired for a year, served half a year of the time, and married.—The question was, First. Whether the churchwardens could make an order to remove him to the place of his last legal settlement? Secondly. Whether his serving here would not gain a settlement? To the first point it was admitted, that the contract between the master and servant was not dissolved by the marriage ; and that admitting it might be dissolred by an order made on complaint of the master, yet without that, and upo: complaint of the officers only, it could not be dissolved. – And by THE Court. The marriage does not hinder the service, the contract continues, and if the man performs bis service, he gains a settle ment. 2 Salk. 527.
child of children,
So in the K. F. Clent, Mic. 1 Geo. 1, the court held, that the biring for a year, and service for that whole year, though the servant marry before the year is out, will gain him a settlement.
So 2160 in the K. 1. Sutton, Mic. 1 Geo. 2, an unmarried person having served a year, hut in the intermediate time mar. ried - The Count held it good, and to be unmarried at the tims of airing, is the only thing necessary, in order to get a settlement by the seroice, and that the service is not dissolved by the marriage. 2 Sess. Cas. 133.
Soalan in the K. 1. Allendale, Tr. 29 Geo. 3, in February 1788 , the pau per being then an unmarried man, not having
was hired for a year to a person at Allendule. It was in the contemplation of both the master and the servant, and perfectly understood by them, at the time of hiring, that the pasper would marry before he entered upon his service. After cech biring, and before the commencement of the service, he marted his rife
other panper, and entered upon his service e married aan, and served out the whole year a married man 3 Alendal.-It was contended, that the statute meant to res. traáa those persons who were married at the time of entering into the service, from bringing a charge upon the parish; and teat the time when the service commences (not the time of the biring) is the criterion by which the court is guided in determin. 34 whether or not the case comes within the statute. ---But by lored Renyon Ch. J. This question has been long settled. And the paper in the present case gained a settlement by hiring and service at Allendale ; for though he married before the service contenced, yet he was unmarried when he entered into his counct; and whether he married the day before the service Omand, or six months afterwards, it makes no difference. present and that has long been considered as the rule. 3 Term And the marriage of the servant during the time of service, 1 subicient cause for his discharge-For in the K. v. Hanbay Tr. 26 & 27 Geo. 2, the pauper was hired for a year in Bluebery, served three quarters, and then married. Of this Vocaster complained to a justice of peace. The justice thought
2 cutter complained of to be a sufficient canse for the pauper's Visg discharged; and allowed of his discharge ; but made no s in writing touching the matter. The master thereupoo Indarged him, against his, the pauper's consent.-Lee, Ch. kude that was sufficient I-Wright J. thought there was
y reasonable cause ; for what objection is the marriage ? ibar-Dennison and Foster Justices. He cannot be
and the justice caonot discharge but for thes Endarged against his own consent. Consequently the set. teas Hanbury goes on, and is his last legal settlement.
Aste hue busband is abroad hiring herself before his
Burtaa's seu. Cas. 322.
death, and continuing in serrice under such hiring for a yeh
And although the hiring be to a parent, it is not mater to
An hiring for a year cannot be intended unless there contract between the parties, as master and servant- Thi the K. v. Walton, Ea. 9 Will. 2, a gentleman sent his foo to a barber who lived in Chesterfielil, for one year, to lea: shave: and the barber was to have the benefit of the ti work; the boy accordingly lived with the barber in the said p. one year; and the question was, if this made a settlemen the boy in Chesterfield as an hired servant ?-By The Co This is not such a hiring or such a service as is within th tent of the statute; because here was no reciprocal con between the boy and the barber, and he had no remedy to pel him to serve : for every hiring within that statute mu reciprocal; but here the boy was in nature of a scholar an of a servant. Carthew, 400.
So in Gregory Stoke v. Piliinster, Vic. 13 Geo. 1.pauper, who was a young girl, was sent to by a relation, told her, that if she would live with her she should have meat, drink, washing, and lodging. The girl accepted the t and lived with her four years as a servant. It was in: that the girl gained a settlement within the statute-Bus Court held, that there must be an actual contract, as th
Concerning the biring
sant is under no obligation to stay, and the contract must be mutual to bind the parties; this is no agreement ; but an en. couragement to the poor girl, that if she would live with the relation she would maintain her. 2 Sess. Cas. 120. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 326.
But it was observed by the Court, in the case of the K. Lyth, Tr. 33 Geo. 3*, that in this case of Gregory Stoke v. Pitminster, the presumption of a hiring was destroyed by the peculiar circumstances of the case, it appearing thereby that the grand-mother took the pauper out of charity; and that she only lived with her as a relation, and not as a servant-How. ever, the general authority of the case, even under its own particular circumstances, seems to have been considerably sha. ken by the determination of the court in the case of the K. v. The Inhabitants of Worfield, Hil. 34 Geo. 3, and particular. ly by what fell from lord Kenyon, in that case:- It appeared that the pau per, who was born in Ilorfield where her father was legally settled, went to live with a person in St. Leonard's, Bridgnorih, and served him near a year, but was not hired, as she knew of. While she lived in this service, another person of St. Leonard met with her, and taking her into his house, a ked her if she were hired again to the master she was then with? to which she answered that she was not: he then asked her if she would come and live with him, and take care of his child, to which she coasented; she soon afterwards went to him ; and two or three days after she had been in his service, he told her he would find her meat, drink, and clothes, and asked if she would be satisfied with that; she told him she should, and she accordingly lived with bim about two years and an half, when her mistress told her that her child was then old enough not to require any further attendance, and dismissed her. By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. It has been so long settled that a general hiring is a hiring for a year, that it ought not now to be controverted; in my opinion, the hiring in this case was a hiring for a year. The circumstance of the pau per's going a way in the middle of a year, does not show that this hiring was not of such a description; for it was competent to both parties to put an end to the contract when. ever they pleased : and here they did dissolve it in the middle of the year. “ It is much to be wished, that in cases of this " kind, the justices at the sessions would draw the conclusion, " and state it as a fact whether or not there was a hiriog for a
With respect to the case of Gregory Stoke v. Pit. minster (mentioned in the argument), it was determined early in the reign of George the Second, when these questions were Dot discussed or understood so well as they are at present.--Ashhurst J. The circumstances of this case shew that the parties intended that this should be a hiring for a year ; the pauper was to be provided with clothes in lieu of wages; now, if she had been
* See 5 Term Rep. 328, 329, and Nolan's Rep. 252.
REMOVALS. clothed the day after she went into the service, could it bare been the intention of the parties, that she might hare left the service immediately? if not the nert dau, ichan other lincan be drurn? This shews that both parlies acant that this service should be permanent, and that it should not be in th power of the pauper to leare the service when she pleased This, then, was a general hiring, which the law construes to be for a year.- Buller and Grose Justices avventing -Order of ra moval to l'orfeld, quashed. 5 Term Rep. 506.
So in the K. v. IVeyhill, Hil. 32 Gev. ?, it appearedo the evidence of the pauper, (the only witness producer either side), that about the year 1719, and when the paup was about 8 years of age,one Robert lyke, E-4. took him in his family, from charity, and gave him his meat, drink, lod ing, and clothes, while he continued with him, which was abo two years in the parish of Worth Vatrudirse,and afterwards fo years more in the parish of Il'eyhill; that neitherat nor before time of the said Pyke's taking the pauper into his family nor any time after was there any contract between the said part in relation to the pauper's service of the said Mr. Pyke, or continuance with him, or to any wages or other gratuitý fo paid him : that during the pauper's continuance with the sa Mr. Pyke, he was employed in running of errands and do whatsoever the said Mr. Pyke or his servants thought fit to him : that no wages were ever paid or given him : and that the pauper's apprehension, he was, during all the time all said, at liberty to quit the said Mr. Pyke, or the said Mr.l'yk turn him off, as either party should think fit. The sessions wer opinion, “That, at this distance of time, a hiring for a year ou s to be presumed;" and therefore confirmed the order of to Weyhill. It was moved to quash these orders, and the c were clear that this was no hiring at all, no contract; bu was taken out of charity, a child eight years old, to run errands, and do whatever he was bid; and left Mr. Pyke v he came to be fourteen, and capable of doing more ser And it is expressly stated, that there was no contract. und where there is a hiring stated, the court will presume have been a regular one (uuless the contrary appears): here was no hiring at all.---Both orders quashed. Barr Sett. Cas. 491.
So in the K. v. Thames Ditton, Ea, 25 Geo. 3, the pa was bought in America us a negro slave, and in the year her master brought her to England; in the month of No
her, in the same year, her master went to lire at Th .. Dition, and took the paper with him; she continued to
with him as his servant till June 1783, when he died; alter the death of her master, she was baptized at Thames ton, and she continued alter his death to live with his and executrix, who a! erwards removed to Chelsea, at place the pauper continued to live withher as before fo