Ninthly, Of settlement by office.

that the duties of the office need not extend over the whole of the parish in which the pauper resides. [Bayley, J. Is there any case in which it has been held, that the serving an office in one part of the parish, and residence in another, affords sufficient notoriety, and is a sufficient service to confer a 2. What office, &c. settlement?] Perhaps no case is to be found, that expressly goes that length; but upon the general principle of the rule, and by analogy to other cases, it would seem that residence in any part of the parish is sufficient. [Bayley, J. That will hardly be enough to support this settlement; but independently of that point, can this situation be called an "office," within the meaning of the statute?] A variety of cases have been decided upon that subject, but no strict or definite rule has ever yet been laid down. The words of the statute are, "office or charge ;" and, at least, the pauper's employment, in this case, seems to satisfy the meaning of the latter term. -Berens, contra, was stopped by the Court.-Bayley, J. It is unnecessary to go more at large into the objections raised upon the face of this case, because it is perfectly clear that the office held by this pauper, is not a public annual office or charge within the meaning of this statute. This person was appointed at one court-leet to serve till the next; the interval between the two courts did not amount to a year, and the courts were held at various intervals, ad libitum. Therefore, he was neither appointed for a year, nor did he serve a year; the office was neither in its nature annual, nor was the appointment to it annual; and one or the other of those characteristics is absolutely necessary. I entertain very considerable doubt whether his residence was such as to afford due notoriety of his being the person who held the office, and also whether, not being sworn, he was legally invested with the oflice; but it is not necessary to decide those points, because the settlement is evidently insufficient upon the ground already noticed. This is not a public annual office in its nature, and the pauper was not appointed to it for a year; and therefore it is not such an office as is necessary to confer a settlement.-Best, J. Upon the point last alluded to by my brother Bayley, it is quite clear, that no settlement has been gained in this case. There must be either an appointment to an office to serve for a year, or an appointment to an office which by its nature is annual; and here there is neither the one nor the other. I am also inclined to think that the pauper's residence was insufficient. The principle upon which the courts have been accustomed to decide what is or is not good residence, is, that there shall be such a residence as necessarily renders it notorious to all the parish that the officer is within it. Now, here there is no such notoriety, nor from the very nature of the residence, can be. This case also comes within the very distinction laid down by Lord Kenyon in the case of Rex v. Whittlesea, namely, that an appointment by the parish at large is good, but that by individuals is not; because this pauper was clearly appointed by a portion of the parishioners only. Order quashed.

Rex v. Hambledon, 4 B. & C. 459; 6 D. & R. 554 ; 3 D. & R. Mag. Ca. 215. Order of removal of Birdseye, from Witney to Hambledon, confirmed. Case: In 1786, the parishes of Brumley, Chiddingfold, Dunsfold, and Hambledon, were incorporated under the 22 Geo. III. c. 83. The parishes of Haslemere, Shalford, Saint Martha, Huscomb, and Elstead, afterwards took the benefit of the same provisions; and all the parishes before mentioned became incorporated parishes for the purposes of that statute. About 1787, a very large house of industry was erected by contribution of all those parishes upon the waste of the manor, in Hambledon, as the most convenient situation for the purposes of the incorporation. To this house, paupers from all the united parishes were sent, and were maintained separately, at the expence of the parishes to which the paupers belonged. For the management of this house, and the employment of all classes of paupers therein, a governor was from time to time appointed, under the powers of the statute. In 1820, the pauper was appointed governor of the house of industry, by this order. Form:-"Surrey sessions. We, two of his Majesty's Justices of the peace for the county of Surrey, acting for the hundred of Godalming, in the said county, do hereby appoint John Birdseye, of Hambledon, to execute the office of governor of the poor,

Governor of a

workhouse is not an officer.

Appointment to be governor for a particular parish, belonging to an incorporated dis

in a workhouse

trict, is bad.

Ninthly, of settlement by office.

2. What office, &c.

If a church-yard lie in two pa

may gain a settlement in the one in which he no part of the

resides, although

church lies with

in that parish.

for the parish of Hambledon, within the said hundred, for one year, to be computed from the week of Easter now last past, to which he has been recommended at a public meeting, holden the 29th day of March last, pursuant to the directions of the statute passed in the 22 Geo. III., for the better relief and employment of the poor. Given under our hands and seals this 6th day of April, 1822, G. W., O. J. M." Under this appointment he served the office of governor for three years in succession, upon the same terms, and during that time resided in Hambledon.Bayley, J. The last objection is decisive of the case: (namely) the appointment for one parish is clearly bad. But it seems to me that the other objections are fatal also. It has been decided that the situation of master of a workhouse is not a public office, unless it is so constituted by an act of parliament; (Rex v. Mersham); consequently, previous to the 22 Geo. III. c. 83, no service in such a situation could have conferred a settlement. It is true, that statute calls it an office, but the 39th section provides that nothing contained in the statute shall alter or affect the settlement of any person; therefore it leaves the office just what it was before, and a settlement cannot be gained by service under it. Upon all these grounds, therefore, it seems to me, that the order of sessions ought to be quashed.— Holroyd, J., and Littledale, J., concurred.

Rex v. Liverpool, 3 T. R. 118. Samuel Littlemore, removed from Liverrishes, the sexton pool to Stourton. Order quashed. Case: The pauper, about sixteen years ago, came to reside in Liverpool, and while he resided there was elected sexton by the proprietors of seats in the church or chapel of St. James's, at a Vestry held in the presence of the churchwardens, being recommended by the then minister, to that office; and executed that office six years, lodging all the while in Liverpool. The boundary between Walton and Liverpool is in the chapel-yard of St. James's; the church and part of the church-yard stands in Walton, and the other part of the church-yard is in Liverpool; but no corpse was ever buried in that part (within the parish of L.)—whilst the pauper executed the office, though corpses have been buried there since. The inhabitants of Liverpool, seat-holders, and others, constantly attend the church of St. James's, in proportion of fifty to one of any other parish or place. It was admitted, that the office of sexton was such as would entitle the person executing it to a settlement; but it was contended, that the office must be executed in the town or place, in order to give a settlement. But here he was chosen sexton to the chapel of St. James's, which stands in Walton; and it appears that he never executed any part of the office in Liverpool. The executing of an annual office is equal to giving notice, but the execution of this office in Walton, was no notice to the parish of Liverpool. The sexton is appointed to the church, and not to the church-yard; for it appears from the definition of a sexton in Burn's Eccl. Law, and Chamb. Dict., that he is an officer to take care of the vessels, vestments, &c., belonging to the church, and to attend the minister and churchwardens at church; and this office is entirely distinct from that of a grave-digger.Lord Kenyon, C. J. There is no doubt but that part of the office of sexton consists in digging graves: this is different from that of sacrist, which is an office scarcely known since the Reformation, except in some of the cathedrals; whose duty it is to take care of the sacred vestments. And it is as clear, that the office of sexton is a public office within the meaning of 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6. In this case the church-yard lies in two parishes, and the sexton gained a settlement in that in which he resided.-Per Curiam. Order of sessions confirmed.

Warden for a borough, which extends itself into

St. Mary v. St. Lawrence in Reading, 19 Vin. Abr. 379; 2 Bott, 156. Mr. Foley says, the question was, Whether the being warden for the borough, several parishes, and serving that office for a year, in the borough which extends itself into

gains a settle

ment in the pa.

rish in which he lives.

several parishes, is such a service of an annual office as will gain a settlement? And, by the Court, it was held to be an office, the serving of which for one whole year, was sufficient to gain him a settlement in that parish within the borough in which he lived. Foley, 121. But in this report there must, probably, have been some mistake. A churchwarden is a parochial officer, and his office doth not extend into several parishes. Mr. Viner, from

a manuscript note which he had of this case, says, The officer is mentioned there to be warden of the borough (which is most likely), being in nature of a tithing-man, to execute the process of the justices of the borough. But he is not to execute his office in one parish only, but all over the borough. And it was doubted whether this was a settlement or not; because he was not elected into this office by the parish, neither was the exercise of his office confined to the parish; yet he is a public officer, and his office is partly exercised within the parish, so that the parishioners must take notice of him.And, by the Court, it was held a good settlement, being within the express words of the statute of executing an office in a town or parish.

St.Maurice v. St. Mary Kallendar, in Winchester, 1 Burr. S. C. 27; 2 Bott, 158. William West, a certificate-man, from St. Thomas's, came into St. Mary Kallendar, in Winchester. He was afterwards chosen one of the constables for the city of Winchester, which city consists of several other parishes besides that of St. Mary Kallendar, and was legally placed in that office, and executed it in and through all parts of that city, for one whole year; during which time he resided in the parish of St. Mary Kallendar.— By the Court, unanimously: He avoided his certificate, and consequently gained a settlement in St. Mary Kallendar, by executing this office in that parish; though chosen by the whole city, and not by the parish of St. Mary singly; and though not a mere parish office. For, in the words of the act, he executed an annual office in the parish, being legally placed in such office. The office of bellman and town-crier, is also an annual office within the statute, and will give a settlement in that parish wherein such officer resides, if his office extends over several parishes of which the town is composed. [See Rex v. St. Nicholas, post, 648.]

Rex v. Fittleworth, Burr. S. C. 238. A certificate-man was elected and sworn a tithing-man, for a tithing which did not extend through all the parish. By the Court. It is not necessary that the office should extend throughout all the parish: the act only requires the executing some annual office in the parish.

Rex v. Amlwch, 4 B. & C.757; 3 D. & R. 303; 1 D. & R. Mag. Ca. 304. Order of removal of John Owen, from Amlwch in the county of Anglesea, to Llanerchymedd, quashed. Case: The market town or village of Llanerchymedd lies partly in the parish of Amlwch, the church of which is five or six miles distant, partly in two other parishes, and partly in the vill of Llanerchymedd, to which place this removal is made. The vill of Llanerchymedd lies in the middle of the village, and consists of a small plot of land, the property of the parson, on which stand the whole of the church and churchyard. There are also within it twelve or fifteen houses, and a few acres of land. It has of late maintained its own poor, and the inhabitants have been assessed to the land-tax, as in the hamlet of Bryngwallen, which is in the parish of Ceidio. No churchwardens were ever known to be appointed, and no evidence was given of the appointment of a constable, although it appeared that the pauper's father had been seen acting as one for several years. The church or chapel of Llanerchymedd is kept in repair of right, one side thereof by the family who own the Llwydiarth estate, and the other side by the family who own the Chrodden Issa estate. That part of the village which is in the parish of Amlwch, is all on the Llwydiarth estate, as are also the hall, and several farms in the vicinity. The chapelry of Llanerchymedd is attached to the rectory of Llanbenlan, in the presentation of the Bishop of Bangor, the parson of which receives the rents of the glebe lands in and near the vill of Llanerchymedd, appoints the curate, and pays his salary. The emoluments of the curate arise partly from his salary, and partly from offerings and oblations, and other payments termed surplice fees. The inhabitants of the vill have no private sitting places in the church; all those on the south side belong to the Chrodden Issa estate; those on the north side belong to the Llwydiarth estate, which is in the parish of Amlwch, and the chief part of the congregation are dwellers on that estate. A proportion of the elements used at the administration of the sacrament at Llanerchymedd church, is supplied by Amlwch. The clerk and sexton of Llanerchymedd appear to have been appointed by the Llwydiarth family, malgré the minister; his emoluments

Ninthly, Of settlement by office.

2. What office, &c.

arise from sweeping the church, and washing the surplices, which are not paid by the inhabitants of the vill, and also from offerings and other fees pertaining to his office. John Owen, the pauper, was appointed clerk and sexton of Llanerchymedd in March, 1795, and he has executed the office to the present time, dwelling altogether in that part of the village of Llanerchymedd which lies in Amlwch. The pauper's father was settled in the vill of Llanerchymedd. It had been the uniform practice of the minister of Llanerchymedd, to attend with his clerk at the houses of the inhabitants of Amlwch, in the village and its vicinity, for the purpose of visiting the sick, administering private baptism, and reading a prayer prior to the removal of bodies that were about to be buried at Llanerchymedd church. No limits were assigned as to the distance from the village within which these several services had been performed by the minister and clerk of Llanerchymedd. No marriages of the inhabitants have been solemnized in Llanerchymedd. The witnesses differed in opinion, whether these services rendered to the inhabitants of Amlwch by the minister and clerk, were rendered as a matter of right or of indulgence. The sessions were of opinion that the pauper had held an annual office, a part of the duties of which were performed in the parish of Amlwch, where he resided, and on that ground quashed the order. Bayley, J. The question is, Whether the pauper exercised a public annual otice within the parish of Amlwch, within the meaning of the 3 & 4 W. III. c. 11, s. 6. It enacts, "That if any person shall execute any public annual office in the parish during one whole year, then he shall be adjudged to have a legal settlement in the same, though no such notice in writing be delivered and published as is hereby before required." The legislature considered the executing of an office within the parish to be so notorious, as to form an equivalent to the notice required in other cases. The question is, Whether the pauper acquired a settlement by executing the office of clerk and sexton in a part of the parish in which he resided? Now, it is not necessary, in order to acquire a settlement by serving an office, that the duties of the office should be co-extensive with the parish. If it be notorious to the parish that the office is exercisable within it, that is enough. In Rex v. St. Mary, Reading, which was the case of a constable, and in St. Maurice v. St. Mary, Kalendar, which was the case of a tithing-man, the duties of the office were performed in several parishes besides those in which the paupers resided. In Rex v. Fittleworth, a certificate-man was elected and sworn a tithing-man, for a tithing which did not extend through all the parish of Fittleworth, but comprehended that part of it where he resided; and the Court said it was not necessary that the office should extend throughout all the parish; the act only required executing some annual office in the parish. It is sufficient, therefore, to give a settlement in a parish, that the duties of the office served, extend into that parish. Then, were the duties of any part of the office of clerk and sexton of the vill and chapelry of Llanerchymedd, of right to be performed within the parish of Amlwch? Whether the vill and the chapelry are, in point of fact, co-extensive, does not appear; they are not necessarily so; for Llanerchymedd being an extra-parochial place, the duties of the office of clerk and sexton of the chapelry may be confined and limited to the vill. The founder of a chapel may, by consent of the rector, fix the limits of the chapelry; and it was matter of evidence, therefore, whether the chapelry extended beyond the vill. Upon that point there was contradictory evidence; but altoge ther it seems to me, that the justices have arrived at the right conclusion, that the duties of the office were of right performed in the parish of Amlwch; and if that be so, the pauper has acquired a settlement by discharging some of the duties of the office within the parish. The rectory of Llanbenlan, to which Llanerchymedd is attached, appoints the curate, and pays his salary; but the owner of the Llwydiarth estate appoints the clerk, and repairs the chapel. The chapel is appropriated, part to the use of the tenants of the Llwydiarth estate, and part to the use of the tenants of another estate. The inhabitants of the vill have no seats. It has been the uniform practice of the minister of Llanerchymedd occasionally to attend with his clerk at the houses of the inhabitants of Amlwch; whether as matter of duty or of indulgence was left in doubt: but in my opinion, the sessions have done right in concluding that it

Ninthly, Of settlement by office.

was done as matter of obligation. Then, was not this a description of office notorious in the parish of Amlwch? The fact of the parish having supplied a portion of the sacramental elements, is a very clear circumstance to shew its notoriety. Part of the charges made by the parish officers of Amlwch, in 2. What office, &c. their accounts, must have been for bread and wine supplied to the chapel of Llanerchymedd; and that affords a strong argument that the chapel was erected for the benefit of the parish as well as of the vill.-Holroyd, and Littledale, Js., concurred. Order of sessions confirmed.

Rex v. Whitchurch Burr. S. C. 365; 2 Bott, 163. The pauper was no- Bailiff or ale-tastminated at the court leet, and sworn into the office of bailiff or ale-taster for er for a borough. the borough: and he executed the office for a year: the office consists in inspecting weights and measures within the borough, and in warning the jury to serve at the court leet there: the borough is not one-sixth part of the parish: the bailiffs have never executed any authority over the parish at large: great part of the parish knew nothing of such office: new married men, and new comers, were frequently nominated, for the sake of colt-ale. Ale-taster is an ancient and known officer, and as to the objection of the parish, Rex v. Fittleworth is in point, and this is a good settlement.

Whether a certi

Burliscomb v. Sanford Peverell. 1 Stra. 544. The sessions adjudge that Tithing-man, the office of tithing-man is not such an office as that a man thereby shall gain a settlement.-But by the Court. The order must be quashed; for this is an annual office in the parish, within the words and meaning of the act. Holy Trinity v. Garsington, Fol. 123; Sett. & Rem. 95. A certificate-man was appointed tithing-man by the steward of a leet. He served a year; but was not sworn in till half the year was expired. The Court inclined that it was a good settlement; but being a new case, and somewhat doubtful, they ordered a second argument to this point, Whether he was legally placed in the office or not, as not having been sworn till half the year was expired? But the order was afterwards quashed for want of complaint that the pauper was actually become chargeable.

ficate-man, entering upon office not sworn in till immediately, but after the expirasufficient, Qu.? tion of a year, be

er, but not sworn

He must be the

officer, both de facto and de jure.

A settlement

gained by serving the office of hog-ringer for the parish.

Wingham v. Sellindge, 2 Stra. 1199; Burr. S. C. 223. A certificate-man A certificate-man was told by his wife, that the borsholder had left a wooden tally at his house, chosen borsholdas a token that he had been chosen borsholder at a court leet of the manor; in, gains no setbut he did not know it of his own knowledge, nor was there any evidence tlement. of a presentment by the leet jury, or of his appointment or election, nor did he ever take the oath of office; but once he executed a warrant of a justice directed to the borsholder, and for that whole year he was willing and ready to execute the office.-By the Court. When an order of sessions states the facts specially, the Court must take it, that the justices have stated all the evidence that appeared to them. Now the act requires a legal placing in the office. But it is stated here negatively, that there was no presentment, no admission or swearing. So that here is no foundation for supporting a legal placing. Rex v. Whittlesea. 4 T. R. 807. Removal from Crowland to Whittlesea. Case: The pauper, during his residence in Crowland, was legally chosen a hog-ringer for that parish for one year, at a court leet for the manor of Crowland: he was presented by the jury for the office, and was sworn therein, and paid 4d. for the oath, and he served such office two years on his own account. The duty of such office is to attend the open commons, to see that all hogs turned thereupon were rung, and such hogs as were not rung, to take to the pound, which he frequently did, and he always received 1d. for impounding, and 6d. for ringing each hog. The appointment to such office is of great antiquity, and serviceable to the inhabitants of Crowland.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. It is stated in the case that this is an annual office of great antiquity, and serviceable to the parish at large, and that there is an oath of office; therefore it seems to me, that it is a public annual office within the meaning of the act. Every employment in a parish is not indeed equal to express notice, though it be a matter of notoriety to the parish. It was once made a question, whether shoeing the horses of the lord of the manor was not equal to notice? But it was determined not to be equivalent. If this person had been hog-ringer to certain individuals only, he would not have thereby gained a settlement; but he was not merely an officer of A., B., or C., but of all the inhabitants of the parish. It has been