Ninthly, of settlement by office. 2. What office, &c. That of an assistant overseer is an office within the act, but the appointment must be duly stamped. Collector of the lic annual office. held that a tithing-man, a borsholder, an ale-taster, or a hayward, may gain Rex v. Lew, 8 B. & C. 655. Order of removal of W. Purlrick from Rex v. Hammond, 2 Bott, 157.-By Pratt, C. J. Serving the office of land-tax is a pub collector of the land-tax is a sufficient office to gain a settlement within the 3 & 4 W. III. c. 11, s. 6, for it is not necessary that the office should be a parish office: any office is sufficient, so that by the notoriety of it, it may be presumed that the parish had notice of the person's being come into the parish. Collector of du burials. Bisham v. Cook, 1 Stra. 411. The pauper lived in Bisham, and executed ties on births and there the office of collector of the duties given by 6 & 7 W. III. c. 6, on births and burials. It was moved to quash it, because this was not a parish office, and it would be giving the commissioners (who are to appoint the collectors) a power to bring what charge they would upon the parish: besides, it was not stated in the order, that this was an annual office, as it must be to give a settlement, within the express words of the act.-By the Court. The reason why the executing an office gives a settlement without notice, is, because of the notoriety of the thing, of which the parliament thought it impossible but the parish should have notice: can any thing be more notorious than this, which Ninthly, Of settlement by office. 2. What office, &c. Needs not be a parish office, but public annual parish. a office in the is to collect a duty from house to house? We cannot suppose a fraud in the commissioners; that they would appoint a person of no substance to be collector, only to bring a charge upon the parish. It needs not to be a parish office, but a public annual office in the parish. And as to its not being said, that this man executed it for a year, we must take it he did so, because it appears, on looking into the statute, that the power given to the commissioners is to appoint a person who shall be collector of the duties for a year, and then give in his accounts. It hath been held a settlement in the case of the land-tax, and why not in this? Order confirmed. Helsington v. Over, Burr. S. C. 746; 2 Bott, 243. Order of removal of Acuracy is not a public annual Rev. John Langhorn from Helsington to Over, confirmed. Case: On the office. 1st day of October, 1766, the vicarage of the parish of Over was sequestered for three years, or till the bishop should release the same: On the 12th, the pauper was ordained deacon, in order to supply the cure of Over during the sequestration: From the 15th, to the 15th of June, 1768, he, by an exchange with the curate at Acton, resided and did duty in Acton, but received his salary regularly from the sequestrators of Over: From the 15th of June, 1768, to the 1st of October, 1769, he resided and did duty as curate at Over, when the sequestration ended: It did not appear that he had any licence to the curacy of Acton.—Lord Mansfield, C. J. There is no colour for considering this as an annual office: It is no office at all.—And Aston, J., said, You cannot call it an annual office, when the sequestration may be determined at any time. It is not like the annual office of a constable or a tithing-man. They are appointed generally, and to serve for a year. That of parish clerk is a freehold; and it is upon that foot that a parish clerk gains a settlement. Orders quashed. Rex v. Wantage, 2 East, 65. R. Puzey, clerk, was nominated by the rector of East Lochinge, to be curate of the same, and was duly licensed, with a yearly stipend of 451. The licence authorised the party, during pleasure, "To perform the office of curate in the parish, &c., in reading the common prayer, and performing other ecclesiastical duties belonging to the said office, according to the form prescribed," &c. Puzey entered on the curacy the same year, and performed the duties for six years, during which he resided in the parsonage house in the parish.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. There is no pretence to say that this is an office, the executing of which, for a year, will give a settlement. The statute of 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, was evidently intended to be confined to inferior annual officers, such as constables and the like, known to the parish; and though in some instances the construction has been carried farther, yet I am not inclined to extend it to cases still farther from the contemplation of the legislature. Order of sessions confirmed. a public officer. Rex v. Milborne, 2 Stra. 1225. T. Membury was certificated from Sheeps- Schoolmaster not head to Milborne, and staid there ten years, during which time lady Elizabeth Hastings conveyed lands to trustees for several charities out of the profits; and among others, the sum of 10l. a-year to the charity-school at Milborne, to be paid to the vicar there for the time being. In the special order of sessions it was stated, that the certificate-man officiated as school-master several years, and received the 101. a-year from the vicar: and this, the sessions held, gained him a settlement in Milborne, where they declared he had a freehold estate; and so had both the requisites to obtain a settlement to a certificate-person, namely, a tenement of 107. a-year, and executing an annual office. But by the Court. The order must be quashed; a schoolmaster is not an office, but only an employment; and what interest T. M. had in the school, whether for life or otherwise, or how he came into this employment, doth not appear; and the legal right to receive the salary is in the vicar, who not caring to officiate himself, has therefore paid it over to this man as his deputy, which could never give any person a settlement, much less a certificate-man. Rex v. Mersham, 7 East, 167. Removal from Boxley to Mersham, confirmed. The parts of the case upon which the question was decided, were, that the pauper at a vestry meeting offered his proposals to become master of the workhouse: that at a subsequent vestry meeting, at which twelve of the Master of a workbe a public offi house held not to cer. Ninthly, Of settlement by office. 2. What office, &c. Governor of a workhouse, if found by the sessions to be a public annual office, gains a settlement. inhabitants were present, he was informed by the parish officers that he was appointed master of the workhouse of the parish of B. at a salary of 161. per annum. No time was ever mentioned for which he was to hold his situation. No appointment was made in writing, nor any entry in the parish books. After serving for four years, he was dismissed at a quarter's notice.-After argument, lord Ellenborough, C. J. said, The principle on which this mode of gaining a settlement has been given, is undoubtedly notoriety to the parish, but a settlement can only be gained in this mode upon the terms of the act of parliament; viz. by executing "a public annual office or charge in the parish:" which brings us back to the question, Whether that which the pauper was appointed to execute were a public office or charge? And it appears to me that he cannot be considered as a public officer. An office must be derived either immediately or mediately from the crown, or be constituted by statute; and this is neither one nor the other, but merely arising out of a contract with the parish, which the parish officers, with the consent of the parishioners, are, by the statute, enabled to make with any person for the maintenance and employment of the poor. It might as well be said that a nurse employed to look after the pauper, or any other employed in like manner to do any part of the parish business, was an officer. The question might admit of a different consideration, if any distinction had been established between an office and a charge, but I can find none either in any case or in the sense of the statute. The determination of the appointment at a quarter's notice, repels the presumption that it was an annual office or charge; therefore, as far as we can collect the intended duration of the employment from the acts of the parties, it appears that the parish might put an end to it within the year if they thought proper; upon the whole, therefore, it appears neither to have been an office, nor a public office, nor a public annual office within the statute.-Lawrence, J., said, it was clearly no office; but only an employment arising out of a contract, between which and an office there is a great distinction. (Rex v. Milborne, ante, 645.) And he agreed in the definition of the word charge, that it must be taken to mean something of the same kind with office, though it may not commonly be known under the name of an office.-Le Blanc, J. If this were to be deemed a public annual office or charge within the act, it would extend to every case where a person had a duty to perform which, from its nature, must be known to the parish in general. But there is a difference between an employment created by the parties themselves, which they may put an end to whenever they please, and that which exists or is created by law. Now this man was in the former situation. It was in the option of the overseers and parishioners to have such a person in such an employment or not; and they could put an end to the employment altogether, whenever they pleased. It was created by themselves, and depended upon their contract. I cannot therefore call this an office or charge within the meaning of the act of parliament. Both orders confirmed. Rexv. Ilminster. 1 East,83. Removal from Honiton to Ilminster, confirmed. The case originally stated was, That the pauper was appointed governor of the workhouse in Ilminster, under the annual salary of 201. He served for five years, and regularly received his salary: at the end of that time he was dismissed at the time of his appointment he was put by the parish officers into possession of certain apartments in the workhouse appointed for that purpose, and which had been occupied by the former governor. Upon the first amended case, these words following were added after the word officers, (in conjunction with two of the principal people of the town who acted as inspectors of the accounts, and conduct of the overseers.)”—Lord Kenyon, after the case had been argued the first time, intimated a strong opinion against the settlement, considering the appointment of the pauper merely in the nature of a servant to the parish officers, by whom he might have been dismissed at any time. In the second amended case it was stated, that the said 66 governor was a public annual office." And the Court then said, that by this finding, "that it was a public annual office," they had precluded any further discussion. office of Rex v. Corfe Mullen. 1 Bar. & Adolph. 211, MS. Upon appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Joseph Miller and his two children were removed from the parish of Sturminster Marshall, in Dorsetshire, to the parish of Corfe Mullen in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :-The pauper having obtained a settlement by hiring and service in the parish of Corfe Mullen, went to reside in the tithing or chapelry of West Holme, a place maintaining its own poor, as shepherd to Mr. Kemp. On the 5th of October 1824, a court leet for the hundred of Hasler was held, in which hundred the tithing or chapelry of West Holme is situated. At that court, Kemp, the tithing-man for the preceding year, appeared, and acted in his office of tithing-man. On the same day at the same court, Kemp nominated the pauper as a fit person to serve the office of tithing-man for the tithing or chapelry of West Holme, and he was appointed by the jury for one year. The entry, from the books of the court leet, appeared as follows:-" October 5th, 1824. Tithing-man of West Holme. George Kemp appears, and Joseph Miller is chosen into the office for the year ensuing, and he is directed to be sworn in before a magistrate within one month, under the penalty of 51." But Miller not being present, the steward gave him notice of the appointment as follows:-"Hundred of Hasler to wit. At a court leet held this day for the said hundred, you were chosen tithing-man for the tithing of West Holme, and you are hereby required to be sworn into your office before a magistrate for the county of Dorset, within one month after the date hereof, under the penalty of 51. Given under my hand and seal in the said court the 5th day of October, 1824. E. Castleman, Steward." When this notice was shewn to the pauper, he refused to received it, or to pay the usual fee to the person who served it. The pauper was never sworn into office, but executed all its duties. He was not a householder either at the time of his appointment, or at any time while serving the office; but occupied part of a house, rent free, found for him by his master, Mr. Kemp, in West Holme, and resided there while serving the said office. On the 4th of October 1825, another court leet for the hundred of Hasler was held, when the pauper was present, and acted as the tithing-man of West Holme, and paid the essoign pence and lawday silver, as is customary with other persons serving the office. At this court another person was appointed tithing-man for the year ensuing. The entry of this appointment in the books of the court leet was exactly in the same form as the entry of Miller's in the preceding year. Gambier and Moody were heard in support of the order of sessions. They contended that supposing that the words "being legally placed," &c. in the act of 9 & 10 W. III. are not to be incorporated in the statute 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, still, under this last act, taken by itself, there must be a legal appointment to the office which is to confer a settlement; and a person cannot be said to execute an office, so as thereby to acquire a civil right for himself, unless he is fully and completely installed in such office. He is not so until sworn in. In Rex v. Whitechurch, the Court assumed that the oath of office was necessary to constitute a churchwarden de jure. In Foot v. Prowse, Lord King, C. J., compared the case of the aldermen of Truro, to that of "" a constable and other annual officers, who are good officers after the year is out, until another is elected and sworn." The constable's oath, as given in Burn's Justice, tit. Constable, is to serve for the year, or till another be sworn in. A mandamus lies to swear in a constable. Why should this be, unless that such proceeding is necessary to his full appointment? A further question arises in this case, whether the pauper can at any rate be said to have borne the office for a year, he having been appointed on the 5th of October, and his successor on the 4th of October following. Another objection is, that the pauper did not serve the office on his own account, but as deputy to Kemp, Rex v. All Cannings.—Bayley, J. The sessions have not found so, and we cannot infer it. In Rex v. All Cannings, the facts expressly appeared on the The pauper here was not of the description of persons liable to serve the office.-Parke, J. That might have been an objection to the appointment, but he has been appointed and served. A similar objection was noticed in Rex v. All Cunnings, but only as tending to shew that the VOL. IV. case. TT Ninthly, of settlement by office. 2. What office, &c. Governor of a workhouse, if found by the sessions to be a public annual office, gains a settlement. annum. inhabitants were present, he was informed by the parish officers that he was appointed master of the workhouse of the parish of B. at a salary of 161. per No time was ever mentioned for which he was to hold his situation. No appointment was made in writing, nor any entry in the parish books. After serving for four years, he was dismissed at a quarter's notice.-After argument, lord Ellenborough, C. J. said, The principle on which this mode of gaining a settlement has been given, is undoubtedly notoriety to the parish, but a settlement can only be gained in this mode upon the terms of the act of parliament; viz. by executing" a public annual office or charge in the parish:" which brings us back to the question, Whether that which the pauper was appointed to execute were a public office or charge? And it appears to me that he cannot be considered as a public officer. An office must be derived either immediately or mediately from the crown, or be constituted by statute; and this is neither one nor the other, but merely arising out of a contract with the parish, which the parish officers, with the consent of the parishioners, are, by the statute, enabled to make with any person for the maintenance and employment of the poor. It might as well be said that a nurse employed to look after the pauper, or any other employed in like manner to do any part of the parish business, was an officer. The question might admit of a different consideration, if any distinction had been established between an office and a charge, but I can find none either in any case or in the sense of the statute. The determination of the appointment at a quarter's notice, repels the presumption that it was an annual office or charge; therefore, as far as we can collect the intended duration of the employment from the acts of the parties, it appears that the parish might put an end to it within the year if they thought proper; upon the whole, therefore, it appears neither to have been an office, nor a public office, nor a public annual office within the statute.-Lawrence, J., said, it was clearly no office; but only an employment arising out of a contract, between which and an office there is a great distinction. (Rex v. Milborne, ante, 645.) And he agreed in the definition of the word charge, that it must be taken to mean something of the same kind with office, though it may not commonly be known under the name of an office.-Le Blanc, J. If this were to be deemed a public annual office or charge within the act, it would extend to every case where a person had a duty to perform which, from its nature, must be known to the parish in general. But there is a difference between an employment created by the parties themselves, which they may put an end to whenever they please, and that which exists or is created by law. Now this man was in the former situation. It was in the option of the overseers and parishioners to have such a person in such an employment or not; and they could put an end to the employment altogether, whenever they pleased. It was created by themselves, and depended upon their contract. I cannot therefore call this an office or charge within the meaning of the act of parliament. Both orders confirmed. He served for Rexv. Ilminster. 1 East, 83. Removal from Honiton to Ilminster, confirmed. The case originally stated was, That the pauper was appointed governor of the workhouse in Ilminster, under the annual salary of 201. five years, and regularly received his salary: at the end of that time he was dismissed at the time of his appointment he was put by the parish officers into possession of certain apartments in the workhouse appointed for that purpose, and which had been occupied by the former governor. Upon the first amended case, these words following were added after the word officers, “(in conjunction with two of the principal people of the town who acted as inspectors of the accounts, and conduct of the overseers.)”—Lord Kenyon, after the case had been argued the first time, intimated a strong opinion against the settlement, considering the appointment of the pauper merely in the nature of a servant to the parish officers, by whom he might have been dismissed at any time. In the second amended case it was stated, that the said office of governor "was a public annual office." And the Court then said, that by this finding, "that it was a public annual office," they had precluded any further discussion. Rex v. Corfe Mullen. 1 Bar. & Adolph. 211, MS. Upon appeal against |