Page images
PDF
EPUB

or married, or having gained a settlement in his own right, or (as in the case of Thirdly, Of the soldier) having contracted a relation which was inconsistent with the idea settlement by of bis being in a subordinate situation in his father's family. Order confirmed. parentage. Rex v. Edgeworth, 3 T. R. 353; 2 Bott, 68; 1 Nol. P. L. 312. H. Roth

3. Of emancipawell, his wife and family, were removed from Castleton to Edgeworth, both in tion. Lancashire. The order confirmed. Case: H. Rothwell, the father of the pau- A child bound per, when the pauper was about thirteen or fourteen years old, came to live apprentice by, upon a tenement at Edgeworth of 51. a-year, and had no settlement there, ander, a void inand resided there about two years; during which time he put out the pauper denture, is not to one J. Pollit, who then resided in Spotland, for four years, to learn the thereby emancitrade of a woolcomber. The pauper accordingly left his father's house, to which he never afterwards returned but as a guest, and resided with and worked for Pollit, at Spotland, for four years; and by him was provided all that time with meat and clothes, and was considered by his mother as part of Pollit's family. During these four years the pauper was sometimes a quarter or half a year without seeing his father or mother, but sometimes came to his father's house on a Saturday evening, and returned home to his master's either on the Sunday evening or Monday morning following. After the expiration of the four years he never returned to his father's family, but worked at his trade of a woolcomber at different places about the country, and supported himself thereby until he married, and resided with his wife and family in a house of his own. After the pauper was put out to Pollit, and before the four years expired, Henry, the father, took another tenement in Edgeworth, of the yearly value of 8l., which he occupied with the former tenement for a year, whereby he gained a settlement at Edgeworth. The pauper never gained any settlement for himself; he had been put out apprentice by indenture, which was void for want of the stamp denoting the payment of the additional duty.-The Court thought this case governed by Rer v. Offchurch, (ante, 303), and (without argument) discharged the rule for quashing the order of sessions.

Rex v. Wilmington, 5 B. & A. 525; 1 D. &. R. 140. The order of removal Emancipation of J. Moore, &c., from Crayford to Wilmington, confirmed. Case : The takes place by pauper, in 1814, was removed with his father to Wilmington. The pauper, a family, or conin the same year, returned with his father into Crayford, and was hired tracting some by the week to Sir H. Crewe in that parish, in whose service he continued other relation, so as a weekly servant for nearly two years. Upon leaving Sir H., he followed permanently to the occupation of mole-catching in Crayford, by which he obtained his exclude the pa. own living. He never resided with his father's family, nor did his father exercise any control over him. In 1815, when the pauper was about seven- acquiring a setteen, his father left Crayford, and went to live at Poplar, and about February, tlement of his 1817, went to Bow, where he rented a house and orchard at 20l. per annum, properly constiand in which he still continues to reside. Whilst the pauper followed the tute an emanci. business of mole-catching in Crayford, he used occasionally to visit his pation. father both at Poplar and at Bow, and once slept at the father's house in Poplar, but he did not receive any maintenance or assistance whatsoever from his father. After the father had occupied the house at Bow for rather more than a year, the pauper, who was then about 19 years of age, married. The question was, whether the pauper before his marriage was emancipated by his earning his own livelihood ?-Abbott, C. J. It is of importance to lay down some general rule for the guidance of magistrates on the subject of emancipation; and the best which I can suggest is this, that during the minority of a child there can be no emancipation, unless he marries, and so becomes himself the head of a family, or contract some other relation, so as wholly and permanently to exclude the parental control. I say nothing about his acquiring a settlement of his own, because that does not, as it seems to me, properly fall under this head. There can be, however, no question, that in that case he is only removable to his own acquired settlement. Here the pauper was under twenty-one, and had neither married nor contracted any such relation as I have described, at the time when his father acquired the settlement at Bow. He was therefore not emancipated, and the order of sessions is wrong. Order of sessions quashed.

Rex v. Roach, 6 T. R. 247; 2 Bott, 46; 1 Nol. P. L. 316. Order

rental control.
It seems that the

the pauper

tion. An adult who

Thirdly, Of confirmed for the removal of E. R. from St. Columb Major to Roach. Case: settlement by The father of the pauper lived in Roach and gained a settlement there, and parentage.

lived with him until after she was twenty-one years of age; when 3. Of emancipa

she was twenty-two, she had a bastard child, for the maintenance of which a bond of indemnity was given to Roach, and she continued still living with her

father. About half a year after, she left her father's house, and went to removes from her Mr. Henwood's, in Roach, as a wet nurse, and lived there eight weeks, for father's house, and goes into

which she was paid 8s. A few days after she left her father's house, the father service, becomes removed to St. Columb, where he rented 121. a-year, and has lived there thereby emanci- from that time; at the end of the eight weeks, the pauper returned to her

father in St. Columb, where she has since remained, but made no contract with him as a servant, nor gained any settlement for herself except as aforesaid.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. It has been very properly observed on former occasions, that this Court ought to be anxious, in determining questions arising on the settlement laws, to lay down clear and distinct rules for the information of a very useful class of persons, the magistrates, who are to decide in cases of this kind. And I hope that the rule of decision which we are about to establish in this case, will fall in with every case that has been cited. For with regard to a supposed expression of mine, in Rex v. Witton cum T'wambrookes, there is an inaccuracy in it. I think I could not have said, because it never was my opinion, that the mere circumstance of a son's attaining the age of twenty-one, was an emancipation so as to prevent his having a derivative settlement, gained by his father afterwards, if the son continued to live with the father; for if the son, with unbroken continuance, remain with, and a member of, the father's family, he is not emancipated. But this proposition will not break in upon any of the cases, but may be reconciled with all of them, namely, that “if a child, under the age of twentyone leave his father's home, and is thereby quà severed from his father's family, and return to his father during a state of pupilage, during which time policy requires that the child should be under the protection of his father, he must be considered as incorporated with his father's family, unless he have gained a distinct settlement of his own, or have become the head of a family himself: but if a child, after a state of pupilage, sever himself from his father's family, he cannot afterwards be incorporated with it.” The case of the soldier proceeded upon that principle; he had neither gained a settlement nor was in a situation to gain one, but he had ceased to be under the control of his parents, and had become liable to the control of others; and as he did not return to his father until after he was of age, the case was thought too clear to be argued. But it must not be inferred, from the circumstances of that case not having been argued, that it passed without consideration, and is not entitled to much notice; because in Rex v. Halifax, Aston, J., who was a very good sessions lawyer, alluded to it as a case properly decided. And if so, it must gover the present, for I cannot distinguish between them. Some stress, however, has been laid in the argument to-day, on the circumstance of that person baving engaged in the situation of a soldier; but that cannot be material in any other way than as shewing that the son was no longer under the control of his father. So in this case, this woman was above twenty-one; she had contracted the relation of servant with another family; she was out of her father's family; she was under no control to him other than that arising from moral obligation and gratitude; and I cannot see how she could afterwards be deemed to be incorporated with

the father's family. The Court agreed, and the order of sessions was confirmed. A widower, bay. Rex v. Cowhoneyborne, 10 East, 88; Bott, cont. 115; 1 Nol. P. L. 316, ing a daughter,

318. Removal from Teddington to Cowhoneyborne. Order confirmed. Case: placed her, at eleven years of The pauper being settled in Cowhoneyborne, some time after the death of age, with an uncle, his wife, went to service, and hired himself to one Clarke of Cowhoneyborne, by whom she was who afterwards removed to Teddington, and the pauper left him at Michaeled, and with mas, 1806, having served him the five preceding years under a hiring for a whom she con. tinued to reside

year in Teddington. On the death of the pauper's wife, W. Nightingale, after she came of who had married his sister, maintained the new-born infant, out of kindage, doing ser. ness to the pauper; and the pauper's daughter, Elizabeth, then about

,

eleven years of age, went, with the pauper's consent, to Nightingale, for the Thirdly, Of purpose of nursing her infant sister. The infant died in about a year; and settlement by from that time to this, Elizabeth continued to live in the house of Nightingale parentage. as one of the family, but doing the work of a servant. Nightingale, previous 3. Of emancipato the pauper's daughter living with him, kept a servant, and would have tion. hired one if she had left him; but he never hired her, or paid her any wages, vice for him, but though he found her in board, clothes, and such pocket-money as he thought without any confit. Elizabeth will be twenty-seven years of age in June, 1808. During all to give her a setthe time she so lived with Nightingale, she considered herself liable to be tlement of her sent away whenever he pleased ; and he considered her at liberty to quit own the father, him when sbe chose; and the pauper considered himself as her father, having gone out bound to receive and support her if Nightingale ceased so to do. But the to service : Held, pauper was not a housekeeper at any time after he went into Clarke's ser- ofage" she was sice. The question was, whether Elizabeth was so emancipated, as to emancipated. enable the pauper (her father) to gain a settlement by his hiring and service with Clarke in Teddington.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The daughter having been originally placed, when an infant, by her father in her uncle's family, continued to live with her uncle after she came of age, as part of his family; receiving no assistance from her father, and being at liberty to depart from her uncle when she chose. She was of age, living apart from her father, having her support from sources independent of him, and was at liberty to quit her uncle when she pleased, as she herself considered. If this be not emancipation, it would be difficult to say what is so, and when it can take effect. Then if she were emancipated after she came of age, it follows, that the father, by the construction which has been put upon the statute of Will. III. gained a settlement by the subsequent hiring and service for a year in Teddington, as “an unmarried person, not having any child.”—Grose, J. The daughter lived apart from her father, after she was twenty-one; not under his control, nor having any contemplation of it, nor receiving any assistance from him; she was therefore emancipated when her father was hired for a year, and served in Teddington.-Le Blanc, J. Under these circumstances, living away from her father before and after the age of twentyone, he having no house of his own, nor giving her any support; I think she ceased, after she came of age, to be part of her father's family, and consequently no future settlement gained by him could be communicated to her; and if so, he gained a settlement by the hiring and service in Teddington.-Bayley, J. To constitute emancipation, it is clearly not necessary for the child to have acquired a new settlement of his own : Rex v. Roach is in point to that. Where is the difference between going out from the father's house after twenty-one to seek a livelihood, and continuing out for the same purpose after that age, where the absence from the father is so long as it was here: the father, too, during all that time, having no house of his own, and having indeed contracted a relation which precluded him from receiving his daughter at home. Orders quashed. Rex v. Morley, 2 M. & S. 417. Removal from Armley to Morley. Order The

son of a cerconfirmed. Case: The pauper's father resided in Armley under a certificate from Morley, dated 1st June, 1761, acknowledging him by name, his wife certificate, upon and three children, to be settled in Morley. The pauper, when about twelve the death of his years old (his father being then lately dead, and he residing with his mother

bound apprentice in Armley under the certificate, as part of his late father's family,) was bound in the certifying apprentice by the overseers of Morley to one Lister of Morley, till twenty-one. served for some He served in Morley under the indentures seven years, and then with his years, and then, master's consent returned to Armley, where his mother and family then with his master's resided under the certificate, and still reside, to serve one Gaunt in Armley. the remainder of The pauper continued in Gaunt's service till the expiration of his inden- his time, till tures. He was then hired by Gaunt for a year, and served a year, and

twenty-one,

with a person in remained with Gaunt four years in the whole, living with him in Armley the certified during all that time. Upon the pauper's going to Armley to serve out the parish, where his remainder of his apprenticeship with Gaunt, he did not go to his mother's mily resided house, nor at any time, during the rest of his apprenticeship, resided at his under the certifimother's as part of her family. The question made was, whether the cate; and afterpauper gained a settlement in Armley by hiring and service with Gaunt himself to the

tificated person, not named in the

tion.

vice.

Thirdly, of Lord Ellenborough, C. J., after observing on the effect of the certificate settlement by said, that brings it to the question, whether he was a part of his father's

parentage. family. In the case of Collingbourn Ducis the pauper, after leaving 8. Of emancipa

his father's family, returned to the parish where his father was living

under the certificate, being under age, and was hired in the certified same person for a parish, at which time he continued a part of his father's family. So, in year, and served Rex v. Keel, the pauper returned to a branch of her family in the certified successive years parish, and was there hired and served whilst under age. Rex v. Ingworth in the certified

is the nearest to the present case; but there is this distinction, that there parishin eded ehat the pauper returned under age to the father's house, and hired himself tlement by such whilst under age to a person in the same parish; and although by comhiring and ser

paring his age when he first let himself, with the time when he last let himself, it does appear that he must have been of age at the commencement of the second year's service under the last letting, yet that circumstance seems to have escaped the notice both of the counsel and the court; and the case was decided entirely on the authority of Rex v. Keel, which it was supposed exactly to resemble; but which, for the above reason, is not so. We do not think, however, that this is an authority to warrant us in deciding that where a child, not named in the certificate, separates himself from his father's family at an age when he is by law capable of supporting himself, he shall either derive a settlement acquired subsequently by his father, or shall be prevented by the certificate from gaining a settlement for himself, which is a disability that can only attach on him as being one of the family. This is illustrated by Rex v. Roach, where a daughter

, being of age, left her father's family, and hired herself to a farmer for eight weeks; during the time of her absence her father acquired a subsequent settlement, and it was determined that she was not entitled to such subsequent settlement, on the ground that she had ceased to be a part of the father's family, or in the language of the cases, was emancipated. That case was fully argued and considered, and it lays down a rule in precise terms, which may serve to govern others in future. The same point was determined in Rex v. Cowhoneyborne. That was the case where the daughter, being under age, went to reside with her uncle, with her father's consent, and was maintained wholly by him, and continued with him till she was of the age of twenty-seven ; and the Court held that she ceased on her coming of age to be a part of her father's family, although

she had not acquired any distinct settlement for herself, and therefore the father acquired a settlement by hiring and service, as an unmarried man, not having a child within the words of the statute. It is true that these latter were cases where the question did not arise upon a certificate ; but they establish a principle which shews what it is that constitutes a child a part of his father's family ; and whatever divests him of the capacity as one of his father's family in the one case, divests him of the incapacity in the other. We are of opinion

, therefore, that the pauper ceased to be a part of his father's family, and by the hiring and service gained a settlement in Armley. Orders quashed. (a)

Rex v. Lawford, 8 B.&. C.271; 2 M.KR. 556. H. Nunn and her children family at fifteen,

were removed from Lawford to St. Anne's, Limehouse. Order quashed;

subject to a case. J. Nunn, the late husband of the pauper, Hannah Nuna, sea service,

in 1802, when about fifteen years of age, quitted his parents, and went to where he remained till twentysea, where he continued till the period of his marriage,

sometimes serving one : Held, that on board a king's cutter, and at other times on board different trading vessels, emancipated, and gaining his own living. Up to the age of eighteen, his parents resided at was settled in the Manningtree, and while there, the vessel on board of which their son was parish where his serving being stationed on the river near that town, the mother washed for

him,
and occasional visits were paid by the son to the

parents, sometimes of a few days' continuance. During the period from 1805 to 1810, the parents,

Where a pauper left his father's

and entered the

he was then

father was then settled.

(a) Note. If the pauper is still one of inhabiting take place after his emancithe family, he cannot acquire a settle- pation. ment in the certificated parish by appren- 214, post, (See title. Apprenticeship.)

Rer v. Manningtree, 6 M. & S. ticeship, unless both the binding and

having quitted Manningtree, removed to St. Anne's, Limehouse, and resided Thirdly, Of on a tenement of the value of twelve guineas a-year; and twice during settlement by those five years the son visited them there, and stayed eight or ten days at parentage. a time, returning to his ship after each visit. The distance prevented the

3. Of emancipamother from continuing to wash for the son, while she and her husband tion. were resident at St. Anne's; but she occasionally sent him small sums for pocket money. The son attained the age of twenty-one, while his parents were residing in St. Anne's, Limehouse. In 1810 the parents quitted that parish, and took a tenement of 241. a-year at Gravesend, on which they resided when the son married, having been in the occupation of it upwards of a year before such marriage.-Bayley, J. It is extremely desirable in cases of this nature to preserve an uniformity of decision, and to act, wherever it is possible, upon broad and general principles, and not to give effect to such nice and subtle distinctions as have been advanced in the argument in support of this order of sessions. It was laid down, as the rule, by Lawrence, J., in Rex v. Roach, that if a child leaves his father's family under twenty-one, and returns while he is under age, he continues to be part of that family, and his settlement will shift with that of his father;, but that if the child, when he attains twentyone, is absent from his father's family, the father thereby loses all control over him, he becomes emancipated, and his settlement will not shift with that of his father, but will continue to be in that parish where the father was settled when the child attained twenty-one. That learned judge there says, “ In the case of the soldier, the son was enlisted when he was under age, and if he had returned home before he was twenty-one, he would have been considered part of his father's family; or if he had quitted the army before twenty-one, without returning home, the father might have reclaimed him by suing out a habeas corpus; but it appears from the case, that he had attained the age of twenty-one before he left the army: therefore, during the time that he continued a soldier, his father lost all control over him, he being of age; and the subsequent settlement gained by the father was not communicated to him.” After applying the reasoning in that case to the one before the Court, the learned judge adds, “ If, after such a service as this, the daughter had returned to her father before she was of age, she would have continued as part of her father's family; but, not returning till after, she can no longer be considered as part of his family." Rex v. Cowhoneyborne, was decided upon the same principle. There, a widower having a daughter, placed her at eleven years of age with an uncle, by whom she was wholly maintained after that time, and with whom she continued to reside after she came of age, doing service for him, but without any contract of hiring to give her a settlement of her own; the father in the meantime having gone out to service. It was held, that on her coming of age she was emancipated. There, at the time she became twenty-one, she continued absent from her father's family. The same doctrine was laid down in Rex v. Hardwicke, the only distinction between that and the former cases being, that the original separation of the child from his father's family was not voluntary; he having been drawn for the militia while he was under age, and served in it until he was twenty-three years of age. That distinction, however, does not vary the question of emancipation; and the principle deducible from that latter case is, that a child is not part of his father's family while he remains subject to a control paramount to that of his father; and that if, while under age, he contract a relation inconsistent with the parental control, which relation continues until after he attains twenty-one, the authority of the father thereby wholly ceases, and he can no longer insist upon the child's returning into his family; and the child is emancipated. In this case, when the pauper's husband attained twenty-one, his father's settlement was at Limehouse, and he was absent from his father's family, in a service, in which he voluntarily continued after he was twentyone. The consequence was, that he then became emancipated, and that his settlement continued at Limehouse, though his father's had been transferred to Gravesend. The order of sessions must be quashed.

Rex v. New Forest, 5 T. R. 478; 2 Bott, 182; i Nol. P. L. 340. On

« PreviousContinue »