from the township of Preston to the township of Pilkington, both in the county of Lancaster, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a case. The order was grounded on the following examination:-Christopher Morley, the pauper, said: "When I was about fifteen years of age, I went to work at Messrs. Crompton & Ditchfield's factory, in the township of Pilkington. It was about the latter end of the year 1828. There was a custom in the mill requiring the workpeople to give a fortnight's notice before leaving their employment. I remained in their employment better than two years, during the whole of which time I resided in Outwood, in the said township of Pilkington, and slept there. I worked under the custom as to giving notice. The works consisted of two mills adjoining each other; and when I wanted to leave the first mill (in which I had been working for about a year) to go to the other mill, I was compelled to serve a fortnight's notice before leaving. The second mill was under a similar custom; and after I had worked in it better than a year, I had a dispute with the overlooker and wanted to leave at once, but was not allowed. The overlooker afterwards gave me a fortnight's notice, at the end of which time I left the factory. I have not since done any act to gain a settlement in my own right." The examination then stated his subsequent marriage and chargeability. The statement of the grounds of appeal was as follows: "That the examination does not shew any settlement in the township of Pilkington. "That it does not contain any legal evidence of the settlement of the persons removed. "That it is bad on the face of it, and does not warrant any order of removal. 1844. THE QUEEN V. Inhabitants of 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of "That it does not state sufficient facts to shew that the said Christopher Morley gained a settlement by hiring and service in Pilkington. "That there was no such hiring and service at Messrs. Crompton & Ditchfield's factory or residence in the township of Pilkington, as in the examination alleged. "That the said Christopher Morley is not legally settled in the township of Pilkington." On the trial of the appeal, the appellants objected to the sufficiency of the examination, because no general or yearly hiring was stated, or could be implied from the examination. They also objected that there was no allegation that the pauper was settled in the appellant township. The sessions, however, overruled these objections, subject to the opinion of this Court, and the following facts were proved on behalf of the respond ents: In the year 1828 the pauper went to work as a piecer at Crompton & Ditchfield's cotton-mill. He was to serve the persons working the mill as master spinners, who were Messrs. Crompton & Ditchfield; but the practice of such mills is, that the piecers assist certain spinners to whom respectively they are attached. The wages paid by the master spinner are in proportion to the work done: the spinner receives the whole wages for the work done by him with such assistance, and thereout pays the piecers, without the interference of the master spinner. The obligation of the parties to remain in the same service varies in different mills. There were no printed rules in the mill in question to regulate such obligation, but it was understood that all persons there employed were bound to give a fortnight's notice of their intention to leave the service, subject to this understanding: the spinner engages and dismisses his own piecers, without the interference of the master spinner. The pauper was engaged by one Eatock, a 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of spinner, and served under him for a little more than a year, during all which time he was a bachelor, unmarried, and without child or children, and worked and slept at Pilkington. His wages were reckoned by the week, but PILKINGTON. paid every fortnight by the hands of Eatock, and he could leave the service at the end of any week, giving a fortnight's notice. At the end of the above period, the pauper, wishing to work as a spinner in an adjoining mill belonging to the same proprietors, was required to give a fortnight's notice of his intention to leave. This adjoining mill was worked by one Meadowcroft, who took it of Messrs. Crompton & Ditchfield, and had the sole management of it, spinning by commission for them at so much a cwt. of cotton yarn spun, but the mill was under the superintendence and control of the proprietors. The pauper immediately engaged himself with Meadowcroft to work at this adjoining mill as a spinner, and to be paid according to the quantity of work done. Nothing was said as to how long he was to remain, but there was the same understanding as to notice. He served more than a year, receiving his wages every fortnight from Meadowcroft's manager. He then left, having received a fortnight's notice from the manager. During all this time he was a bachelor, without child or children, and worked and slept within the township of Pilkington. Upon this evidence being given, the appellants objected, that there was no proof of a settlement, as there had not been, in the case of either service, a hiring for a year; that the first service was to Eatock, and, therefore, varied from the examination sent to the appellants; that the second service shewed a similar variance, and that no settlement could be gained under a hiring and service as above described. The sessions, however, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the several objections taken as above mentioned. 1844. THE QUEEN v. Inhabitants of Cowling, in support of the order of sessions (a).-The examination is amply sufficient with reference to the objections taken in the grounds of appeal. It shews a PILKINGTON. yearly hiring, and of that there was legal evidence, whether conclusive or not. The pauper states that he went to work at the factory, and remained at work more than two years, and that no one could leave work without a fortnight's notice; from that a general or yearly hiring will by law be implied: Rex v. Lyth (b), Rex v. Holy Trinity in Wareham (c). And the want of a yearly hiring is the only objection which the appellants are now entitled to take under their grounds of appeal. The fortnight's notice also, which is mentioned in the case, is sufficient to raise the presumption that the hiring was for a year: Rex v. St. Andrew's, Pershore (d). [Coleridge, J.-In that case there was a different reservation of wages, and the principle there was the difference between the two periods for payment of wages and notice on leaving. Wightman, J.-It is stated in the evidence that the wages were reckoned weekly]. The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be looked at now in considering the examinations: Rex v. St. Andrew's,Pershore (d) is directly in point, for here there was no contract from week to week. Secondly, it is objected, that the contract was entered into with Eatock; but, if that be so, still it would be a hiring by Eatock, as agent, on behalf of Messrs. Crompton & Ditchfield, and the service is stated to have been under them. The pauper would have had a right to sue them in an action for wages. The rule requiring a fortnight's notice is one which is stated to have existed in the other factories of Messrs. Crompton & Ditchfield, and therefore not peculiar to that in which Eatock was foreman. The rule, there (a) January 20th, before Lord Denman, C. J., Patteson, Coleridge, and Wightman, Js. (b) 5 T. R. 327. (c) Cald. 141; 2 Bott. 383. (d) 8 B. & C. 679. fore, was made by the proprietors; and the fact, that 1844. the pauper was bound by it, shews that he was serving THE QUEEN under their control. Wortley and J. Peel, contrà.-The order of sessions must be quashed. The course of decisions in this Court shews, that, neither in examinations nor grounds of appeal may any thing which might be stated be left to inference: Regina v. North Bovey (a), Regina v. The Justices of the West Riding (b), Regina v. Old Stratford (c). Regina v. Wymondham (d). The statements in this examination are consistent with a different kind of settlement from that intended to be set up. It contains no statement of a hiring or of a service; so that, for any thing which appears, the pauper may have been an apprentice. The word servant is not used, nor any term to shew that the pauper was under the exclusive control of Messrs. Crompton and Ditchfield. Rex v. Lyth (e) is not impugned; that case only shews, that, from evidence of service for a year, a contract for a year may be implied, but is no authority in reference to the necessity of alleging in examinations a hiring for a year. In the present case, even if the examination was held to be sufficient, the facts, as stated, are not such as to enable the Court to infer a hiring for a year: Rex v. Hanbury (f); where it was held, that a hiring at so much a week, to part on a week's notice by either party, would not warrant the presumption of a general hiring, even after six years' service. The presumption said to arise from the fortnight's notice is rebutted by the fact, that, in yearly hirings, the usual time for giving notice on quitting service is a month, and not a fortnight. Se v. Inhabitants of |