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