the female pauper from acquiring the settlement of her husband by the marriage (r).

(r) R. v. Edwards, 8 Mod. 320. ii. 481. R. v. Watson and Perrot, 1 Wils. 41. ii. 482. R. v. Tarant, 1 Salk. 174. 2 Bott, 74. ii. 483. R. v. Smith, 2 Bott, 76. ii. 484. R. v. Parkins, 1 Sess. Ca. 76. ii. 485.

As to the validity of the marriage, see ante, p. 33—35.

5. SETTLEMENT BY HIRING AND SERVICE.

"If any unmarried person, not having child or children, shall be lawfully hired into any parish or town for one year, such service shall be adjudged and deemed a good settlement therein (s) :" provided such person shall continue and abide in the same service during the space of one whole year (t), and provided he have resided in the parish forty days (u), and provided the master be not a certificate-man (v), nor the servant a certificate-man in that parish (w).

(s) 3 W. and M. c. II. s. 7. (t) 8 and 9 W. 3. c. 30. s. 4. (u) See 13 and 14 C. 2. c. 12. s. T. (v) 12 Ann, st. 1. c. 18. s 2. (w) 9 and 10 W 3 c. 11. 13 and 14 C. 2. c. 12. s. 3. See ante, p. 28, 29; and see R. v. Buckingham, Burr. S. C. 314. ii. 485. and R. v. Sherborne, Burr. S. C. 182. ii. 307. R. v. Bray, Burr. S. C. 259. ii. 303. R. v. Testerton, 5 T. R. 258. ii. 315. R. v. Horsley, Burr. S. C. 385. ii. 280. R. v. Great Torrington, Burr. S. C. 428. ii. 486 R. v. Kensham, Burr. S. C. 429. ii. 487. R. v. Collingbouru Dacis, 4 T. R. 199. ii. 450. R. v. Frampton upon Severn, 2 Doug. 417. ii. 284.

If any unmarried person, not having child or children.] A widow or widower is an uninarried person within the meaning of this act, if they have no children. Or even if they have children, but the children be emancipated at the time of the contract, they are within the statute (x); but if unemancipated, not (y). So if a married man enter into a conditional contract for hiring, and before the happening of the condition his wife die, and he then enter into the service and serve his year, he thereby gains a (r) Anthony v. Cardigan, Fort. 309. ii 488. R. v. Cowhoneyborne, 10 East, 88. ii. 465. See, as to emancipation, ante, p. 37.

(y) R. v. New Forest, 5 T. R. 478. ii. 444. R. v. Uckfield, 5 M. and S 214. ii. 457.

settlement (z). So, on the other hand, if an unmarried inan contract unconditionally to serve for a year, and marry before he actually enter into the service, he is within the statute, and gains a settlement (a). So if a married man hire for a year, and during the year his wife die, and he afterwards continue to serve another year, he gains a settlement by the service in the latter year (¿). And in all cases, if the servant be unmarried at the time of the hiring, his marriage afterwards during the year, will not affect his settlement (c).

(z) R. v. Bank Newton, Burr. S. C. 455. ii, 439.

(a) R. v. Allendale, 3 T. R. 382. ii. 490. R. v. Stannington, 3 T. R. 385. ii. 491.

(b) R. v. Hensingham, Cald. 206. ii. 476.

(e) Farringdon v. Witty, Salk. 527. ii. 82. R. v. Clent, Fol. 148. ii. 492. R. v. Sutton, 2 Sess. Ca. 133. ii. 493.

Shall be lawfully hired.] There must be a contract of hiring, either express (d), or to be implied from the nature of the service under it, or from other circumstances (e). Even where there is an express hiring for part of a year, another hiring at the end of that time may be presumed to have taken place, from a continuance of service for a year or more after the expiration of the first contract (f). But if it appear from evidence that there was in fact no hiring at all, this of course rebuts the presumption of a hiring (g). Or if the relation between the parties were that of teacher and scholar merely, and not that of master and servant, this rebuts the presumption of a hiring from a service (h). Or if it appear that the pauper was kept from motives of charity merely, and without wages, this will rebut the presumption (2). So,

(d) See Gregory Stoke v. Pitminster, 2 Bott, 179. 2 Sess. Ca. 120. ii. 494.

(e) R. v. Lyth, 5 T. R. 327. ii. 495. R. v. Tyrley, 4 B. and A. 624. ii. 496. R. v. Pendleton, 15 East, 449. ii. 497. R. v. Holy Trinity, in Wareham, Cald. 141. ii. 498.

(f) R. v. Long Whatton, 5 T. R. 447. ii. 499; and See R. v. Hales, 6T. R. 668. ii. 500. See R. v. Sow, 1 B. and A. 178. ii. 501.

(g) R. v. Thames Ditton, Cald. 516. 2 Bott, 182. ii. 502. R. v. St. Matthew, Ipswich, 3T. R. 449. ii. 503.

(h) R. v. Walton, Carth. 400. ii. 504. R. v. St. Mary's, Kidwelly, 2 B. and C. 750. ii. 505. R. v. Combe, 8 B. and C. 82. ii. 506. R. v. Bil borough, 1 B. and A. 115. ii. 507. See R. v. Hitcham, Burr. S. C. 489. 11.508. R. v. Little Bolton, Cald. 367. ii. 509. R. v. Coltishall, 5 T. R. 193. ii. 510. R. v. Burbach, 1 M. and S. 370. ii. 511. R. v. Shinfield, 14 East, 541. ii. 512. R. v. Eccleston, 2 East, 293. ii. 513.

(1) R. v. Weyhill, Burr. S. C. 491. 1 W. Bl. 206. ii. 514. R. v. Rickingall, 7 East, 373. ii. 515. See R. v. Christ's Parish, York, 3 B. and C. 459. ii. 516.

if the pauper were in the relation of child, &c. to the person he served, that circumstance will rebut any presumption of a hiring implied merely from the service (k); and hence the necessity of proof of an express contract of hiring, in such a case, to confer a settlement (l).

(k) R. v. St. Mary, Guildford, Cald. 521. 2 Bott, 184. ii. 517. R. v. Stokesley, 6T. R. 757. ii. 518. See R. v. Sow, 1 B. and A. 178. ii. 501. (1) Gregory Stoke v. Pitminster, 2 Bott, 179. 2 Sess. Ca. 120. ii. 494: See Missenden v. Chesham, 2 Bott, 173. Foley, 142. ii. 519. R. v. Chertsey, 2 T. R. 37. ii. 520. R. v. Chillesford, and R. v. Winslow, 4 B. and C. 94. ii. 521.

The contract of hiring must have been, or be presumed to have been, attended with those requisites which constitute a valid contract. For instance, the parties must have been able to contract; and therefore a deserter (m), or even a soldier with the consent of his officer (n), cannot gain a settlement by hiring and service, not being sui juris. An infant, however, if above the age of seven years (0), may gain such a settlement (p), even by a hiring and service with his father (q). So may a Scotchman, Irishman, or foreigner, gain a settlement in this country by hiring and service (r). By stat. 13 Geo. 2. c. 29. s. 7. no person shall gain a settlement by a hiring and service in the Foundling Hospital; by stat 9 Geo. 3. c. 31. s. 8. no person employed as a hired servant in the Magdalen Hospital, shall thereby gain a settlement; and lastly, by stat. 52 Geo. 3. c. 72. s. 8. no person shall, by a residence in Alice Holt Forest, or by hiring and service either for preservation of the woods or the game in the said forest, gain any settlement in the parish of Binstead.

(m) R. v. Norton, 9 East, 206. ii. 522.

(n) R. v. Beaulieu, 3 M. and S. 229. ii. 523; and see R. v. Holsworthy,

6 B. and C. 773. ii. 524.

(0) See ante, p. 37.

(p) See R. v. Mountsorrel, 3 M. and S. 497. ii. 525. R. v. Eakring, Burr. S. C. 320. ii. 128. R. v. Wincaunton, Burr. S. C. 299. ii. 526. (q) R. v. Chillesford, and R. v. Winslow, 4 B. and C. 94. ii. 521. (r) See R. v. Eastbourne, 4 East, 103. ii. 473. St. Giles's v. St. Margaret's, 1 Sess. Ca. 97. Fol. 251. ii. 43.

And not only must the parties to the contract have been able to contract, but they must have been willing to contract, and the contract must have been their voluntary act; and therefore a pauper, hired out by the parish officers into another parish, cannot gain a settlement

there by service under such a hiring (s); though if a poor boy hire himself out, he will (t).

(s) R. v. Stowmarket, 9 East, 211. ii. 527. R. v. Rinkinghall, 7 East, 373. ii. 515.

(t) R. v. Dunton, 15 East, 352. ii. 528.

A contract of hiring, made on a Sunday, is valid (u).

(u) R. v. Whitnash, 7 B. and C. 596, ii, 529.

It may be necessary to observe, that the contract of hiring may be either by the parties themselves (v), or by agents for them, if it appear that they afterwards adopted the act of the agent (w). Also, it is not necessary that the master should have a settlement (x), or even live in the parish in which the servant serves (y). Nor is it necessary that the contract should be made in the parish in which the settlement is gained (z); if made even in an extra-parochial place, it is sufficient (a).

(v) See R. v. Sandhurst, 7 B. and C. 557. ii. 530.

(w) R. v. Burbach, 1 M. and S. 370. ii. 511. R. v. Houghton le Spring, 2 B. and A. 375. ii. 531.

(1) Missenden v. Chesham, 2 Bott, 173. Fol. 142. ii. 519.

(y) R. v. Eldersley, 2 Bott, 274. ii. 532. Feversham v. Gravenny, Fort. 221. ii. 533.

(z) R. v. Ashton, 2 Bott, 273. Set, and Rem. 23. ii. 534. (a) R. v. St. Peter's, in Oxford, Fol. 193. ii. 535.

For one year.] The contract of hiring, express or inplied, must be one entire contract for a service for one whole year. Therefore a contract for half a year, and at the end of that time a contract for the other half of the year, will not gain a settlement (b); nor will a hiring for fiftytwo weeks (c). A hiring from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide, or other moveable feast, however, will gain a settlement, although the period may comprise less than three hundred and sixty-five days (d). So, a hiring from a day after Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide, will gain a settlement, because the day of hiring and the feast day shall both be reckoned inclusive (e); but a hiring two days after Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide will not (ƒ), even although that

(b) Horsham v. Shipley, Fol. 134. ii. 536. Dunsford v. Ridgwick, Salk. 535. ii. 537. R. v. Lowther, Burr. S. C. 674. ii. 538. R. v. Burnham, Burr. S. C. 87. ii. 539.

(c) R. v. Astley, 1 Nol. 357. ii. 540.

(d) R. v. Newstead, Burr. S. C. 669. ii. 541.

(e) R. v. Navestock, Burr. S. C. 719, 2 Bott, 233. ii. 542. R. v. Syderstone cum Berner, Cald. 19. ii. 543. R. v. Skiplam, 1 T. R. 490. ii. 544. (f) R. v. Harwood, Cald. 100. Doug. 439. ii. 545. R. v. Ackley, 3 T. R 250. ii. 546. R. v. Mursley, 1 T. R. 694. ii. 547. R. v. Standon Massey, 10 East, 576. ii, 548.

period should comprise three hundred and sixty-five days (g), and even although such a hiring be according to the custom of the country (h). Nor will the fact, that the hiring was made for less than a year (?), or that a yearly hiring was rescinded, and one for less than a year substituted for it, by consent (k), for the very purpose of preventing the servant from gaining a settlement, make any difference; although if an agreement be merely colourable for the purpose of preventing a settlement, but the hiring be in substance a hiring for a year, (as, for instance, a hiring for eleven months, and to give one month over, or the like), a settlement will be gained by it (/). So an exceptive hiring, (that is, a hiring excepting a portion of the year), will not not gain a settlement (m): as, for instance, if the servant expressly stipulate for leave of absence during the harvest month (n), or other time (0), or to work only a certain number of hours each day (p), or not to serve on Sundays (g), or the like (r), this will not be deemed a hiring for a year, so as to confer a settlement, even although the servant do not afterwards avail himself of the stipulation; but such a stipulation will not be implied from the custom of any particular trade, &c. (s); nor will the servant's stipulating for leave to serve a month in the militia, if he should be called out, prevent his settlement, because the law

(g) R. v. Ackley, 8 T. R. 250. ii. 546.

(h) R. v. Harwood, Cald. 100, Doug. 439. ii. 545. R. v. Newton, Burr. S. C. 157. ii. 549.

(i) R. v. Mursley, 1T. R. 694. ii. 547. R. v. Haughton, Str. 83. ii. 550. See Pepperharrow v. Frencnam, Set. and Rem. 80. Fol. 135. ii. 551.

(k) R. v. Bottesford, 4 B. and C. 84. ii. 552. See R. v. Market Bosworth, 2 B. and C. 757. ii. 553. R. v. Winteisett, Cald. 298. ii. 554. See R. v. Grendon Underwo d, Cald. 359. ii. 555.

(1) R. v. Milwich, Burr. S. C. 433. ii. 556. See R. v. Market Bosworth, 2B. and C. 757. ii. 553.

(m) See R. v. Lydd, 2 B. and C. 754. ii. 557. R. v. Gateshead, 2 B. and C. 117, n. i. 558. R. v. Edgmond, 3 B. aud A. 107. ii. 559. R. v. Polesworth, 2 B. and C. 715. ii, 560.

(n) R. v. Bishop's Hatfield, Burr. S. C. 489. ii. 561. R. v. Althorne, 2 B. and C. 112. i, 562. R. v. Turvey, 2 B. and A. 520. ii. 563.

(0) R. v. Empingham, Burr. S. C. 791. ii. 564. R. v. Over, 1 East, 599. ii. 565. R. v. Rushulme, 10 East, 325. ii. 566. R. v. Arlington, 1 M. and S. 622. ii. 567. R. v. Leamington Priors, 8 D. and R. 329, ii. 568.

(p) R. v. Macclesfield, Burr. S. C. 458. ii. 569. R. v. Buckland Denham, Burr. S. C. 694. ii. 570. K v. Kingswinford, 4 T. R. 219. ii. 571. R. v. North Nibley, 5 T. R. 21. ii. 572.

(9) R. v. Macclesfield, Burr. S. C. 458. ii. 569. R. v. Kingswinford, 4 T. R. 219. ii, 571.

See R. v. Gateshead, 2 B. and C. 117, n. ii. 558.

(s) R. v. St. Agnes, Burr. S. C. 671. ii. 573. R. v. Birmingham, Doug. 883. ii. 574. R. v. Horwick, 10 East, 489. ii. 575. R. v. All Saints, Worcester, 1 B, and A. 322. ii, 576.