Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thirdly, Of settlement by

parentage.

3. Of emancipation.

that and three

in the certified

parish. Held, that

he gained a settlement by such hiring and service.

Lord Ellenborough, C. J., after observing on the effect of the certificate said, that brings it to the question, whether he was a part of his father's family. In the case of Collingbourn Ducis the pauper, after leaving 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 is the nearest to the present case; but there is this distinction, that there the pauper returned under age to the father's house, and hired himself whilst under age to a person in the same parish; and although by comparing 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 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)

Where a pauper
left his father's
family at fifteen,

and entered the
sea service,
where he remain-
ed till twenty-
one: Held, that
he was then

one case,

Rex v. Lawford, 8 B. & C.271; 2 M. & R. 556. H. Nunn and her children were removed from Lawford to St. Anne's, Limehouse. Order quashed; subject to a case. J. Nunn, the late husband of the pauper, Hannah Nunn, in 1802, when about fifteen years of age, quitted his parents, and went to sea, where he continued till the period of his marriage, sometimes serving 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,

father was then settled.

(a) Note. If the pauper is still one of the family, he cannot acquire a settlement in the certificated parish by apprenticeship, unless both the binding and

inhabiting take place after his emanci pation. Rex v. Manningtree, 6 M. & S. 214, post, (See title. Apprenticeship.)

Thirdly, Of settlement by parentage.

3. Of emancipa

having quitted Manningtree, removed to St. Anne's, Limehouse, and resided
on a tenement of the value of twelve guineas a-year; and twice during
those five years the son visited them there, and stayed eight or ten days at
a time, returning to his ship after each visit. The distance prevented the
mother 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 twenty-
one, 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. Cow-
honeyborne, 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 con-
tinued 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 distinc-
tion, 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 à 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 emanci-
pated. 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 twenty-
The consequence was, that he then became emancipated, and that
his settlement continued at Limehouse, though his father's had been trans-
ferred to Gravesend. The order of sessions must be quashed.

one.

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

[blocks in formation]

Lord Ellenborough, C. J., after observing on the effect of the certificate said, that brings it to the question, whether he was a part of his father's family. In the case of Collingbourn Ducis the pauper, after leaving 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 parish, at which time he continued a part of his father's family. So, in Rex v. Keel, the pauper returned to a branch of her family in the certified parish, and was there hired and served whilst under age. Rex v. Ingworth is the nearest to the present case; but there is this distinction, that there the pauper returned under age to the father's house, and hired himself whilst under age to a person in the same parish; and although by comparing 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. § R. 556. H. Nunn and her children were removed from Lawford to St. Anne's, Limehouse. Order quashed; subject to a case. J. Nunn, the late husband of the pauper, Hannah Nunn, in 1802, when about fifteen years of age, quitted his parents, and went to sea, where he continued till the period of his marriage, sometimes serving on board a king's cutter, and at other times on board different trading vessels, gaining his own living. Up to the age of eighteen, his parents resided at Manningtree, and while there, the vessel on board of which their son was 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,

(a) Note. If the pauper is still one of the family, he cannot acquire a settlement in the certificated parish by apprenticeship, unless both the binding and

inhabiting take place after his emancipation. Rex v. Manningtree, 6 M. & S. 214, post, (See title. Apprenticeship.)

Thirdly, Of settlement by parentage.

3. Of emancipa

having quitted Manningtree, removed to St. Anne's, Limehouse, and resided
on a tenement of the value of twelve guineas a-year; and twice during
those five years the son visited them there, and stayed eight or ten days at
a time, returning to his ship after each visit. The distance prevented the
mother 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 247. 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 twenty-
one, 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. Cow-
honeyborne, 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 con-
tinued 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 distinc-
tion, 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 emanci-
pated. 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 twenty-
one. The consequence was, that he then became emancipated, and that
his settlement continued at Limehouse, though his father's had been trans-
ferred 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

Thirdly, Of settlement by parentage.

Old Martinmas-day, 1777, E. Coates hired himself for a year to G. Bowe of New Forest, and served that year: on the 22d December, 1777, E. Coates married his present wife: William Coates, a legitimate son of his by a former wife, being within one month of the age of sixteen years, and having 3. Of emancipa- gained no settlement in his own right, on the same Martinmas-day, 1777, hired himself for a year to R. Nelson of Ellerton, which he served. The question was, whether, by reason of the service and settlement thereby gained by the son under his hiring, the father could be considered as being year, the emanci- an unmarried man, by the emancipation (which, it was contended, was by

tion.

If a son at sixteen hire himself for a year, and serve that

pation com

mences from the termination of the service.

A pauper, under age, hired himself to serve on board

a ship trading to Newfoundland. While he was so serving, and

twenty-one, his father acquired a new settlement. After he had at

twenty-one,

relation at that moment complete) of his son?-Lord Kenyon, C. J., (after reciting the 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6,) said, that in this case the son was not separated from the father; when the father was hired, the son had gained no settlement for himself; he indeed did on the same day enter into a contract which might or might not have been completed, and which, when completed, would confer a settlement on the son; but at the time when the father entered into the relation of servant at New Forest, the son formed a part of his family.

age,

Rex v. Lytchet Matravers, 7 B. & C. 226; 1 M. & R. 25. Isaac Orchard and his wife, were removed from Lytchet Matravers, Dorset, to St. James, Poole; and the sessions quashed the order, subject, &c. Case:-The pauper never acquired any settlement in his own right. His father was settled in Lytchet Matravers, and while he was so settled, the pauper hired himself before he attained by contract to serve for two summers and a winter on board a ship trading to Newfoundland. In February or March, 1816, being then twenty years of he entered upon that service, in which he continued during the stipulated time. There was no evidence that his father ever exercised any control tained the age of over him during the period of his service. He attained the age of twentyone years before his return from the voyage. Shortly after he had left this country, and before he had attained the age of twenty-one years, his father acquired a settlement in St. James, Poole. On the pauper's return from Newfoundland, he went to reside in his father's house, who, before that time, had left Poole, and returned to Lytchet. After a few weeks he left his father's residence, and lived with his sister, working on his own account, as well there, as during his residence with his father. The sessions were of opinion, that the pauper was emancipated at the time when his father that of his father. acquired the settlement in Poole.-Bayley, J. The question in this case is, whether at the time when the father gained a settlement in the parish of Saint James, Poole, the pauper was emancipated? If he was

the pauper returned to his

father's house: Held, that the pauper was not emancipated when his father

acquired the new settlement, and that his settlement shifted with

not, then his settlement would shift with that of his father. The father was settled in the parish of Lytchet Matravers, and whilst he was so settled, the pauper, his son, being then a minor, hired himself to serve for two summers and a winter. He entered into and continued in the service until he attained twenty-one years of age; but before he had attained that age his father had acquired a settlement in Poole. There can be no doubt that the settlement of a son, if he have none of his own, shifts with that of the parent, so long as the son continues part of the parent's family. When he ceases to constitute part of the parent's family, he is emancipated. The different instances of emancipation put by Lord Kenyon in Rex v. Offchurch, and Rex. v. Witton cum Twambrookes, and recognized by Lord Ellenborough in Rex v. Uckfield, are the child's attaining its full age, or being married, or gaining a settlement, or, as in the case of the soldier, contracting a relation inconsistent with the idea of his being in a subordinate situation in his father's family. In Rex v. Roach, Lord Kenyon qualified what he was reported to have said, as to a son's being emancipated on attaining the age of twenty-one years, by limiting that observation to cases where the son at that age was severed from his father's family; and then adverting to the case of the soldier, he observes, that the soldier had ceased to be under the control of his parents, and had become subject to the control of others; and that as he did not return to the father until after he was of age, the case was thought too clear for argument. It is insisted that this case falls within the fourth class of cases mentioned by Lord Kenyon, and that the pauper, as soon as he entered into the contract, like the soldier who had

« PreviousContinue »