First, Of connecting services, &c. A hiring and service from three weeks after Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and then a hiring for a year, and service for eleven months after second hiring, is a good year's service. A hiring and service from Christmas to Michaelmas, and then a hiring for a year, Midsummer un and a service till der the second hiring will suffice. So, will a hiring and service from Christmas to Whitsuntide, and then a hiring for a year, and service till the beginning of the March after the Christmas. 1698, in which month, by mutual consent, she left her service, and he paid her the proportion of her wages that were then due. The sessions conceived that the pauper, by continuing more than one whole year under this hiring, gained a settlement in the parish of Steventon; and the Court of King's Bench were of the same opinion, for the service under the hiring for half a year, and the half year's service under the hiring for the year, answers the end of the statute 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, and is a good service for the year. The same point precisely was determined in Rex v. South Molton, Raymond, 426; a case the records of which cannot be found, but which, Sir James Burrows says, may possibly be the same case as Rex v. Overton. See Burr. S. C. 550. Brightwell v. Westhallam, 1 Sess. Ca. 87; Fol. 143; 2 Bott, 251; 1 Nol. P. L. 460. There was a hiring and service from three weeks after Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and then a hiring for a year, and service for eleven months. The C. J. said, if there were a service for a year, under a hiring from week to week, and then a hiring for a year, and serving for forty days (a), he should adjudge that a settlement. The reason is, because by the 3 W. & M. c. 11, a hiring for a year, and forty days' service under it, made a settlement; in regard that the hiring for a year shewed that the person was not likely to become chargeable, for that he was able to work: but by 8 and 9 W. III. c. 30, the service must be during the space of one whole year. So forty days is a good settlement to an apprentice, in respect to his skill and art, by which he is supposed unlikely to become chargeable. So a person that has paid parish dues, or served offices in a parish, gains a settlement by forty days, because he is supposed a person of substance, unlikely to become chargeable. But the late act requiring service for a year, as well as an hiring, we think it sufficient if the words be answered, considering this with the design of the former statutes. Rex v. Aynhoe, 2 Sess. Ca. 119; Fol. 144; 2 Bott, 253; 1 Nol. P. L. 446. The pauper was hired from Christmas to Michaelmas, and served till Michaelmas; then was hired for a year, and served till Midsummer. And this was adjudged a settlement. Rex v. Overton, and Brightwell v. Westhallam, were cited.-Lord Raymond, C. J., said, The case of Westhallam was express to the point, and he would not break into it; but if it had been res integra, or a case not adjudged before, he should have thought it ill. Here the service was antecedent to the hiring for a year. The greater part of the judges thought this case to be against the statute, but that they were more strongly bound by the precedent; and were unwilling to set aside a resolution solemnly adjudged, though not according to their own opinion. Rex v. Underbarrow and Bradley-Field, Burr. S. C. 545; 2 Bott, 259; 1 Nol. P. L. 447. A. Kellet hired herself at Christmas to J. Thompson, till Whitsuntide, which time she served. At Whitsuntide, she hired herself to Thompson for one year, and continued in the service till the beginning of March, when she and her master parted by consent. It was urged, that the two cases of South Molton and Rex v. Overton, were determined upon facts prior to the explanatory statute of the 8 and 9 W. III., before which statute a hiring for a year, and a service for forty days, gained a settlement. And it was observed, that in Rex v. Aynhoe, Lord Raymond and Mr. J. Page declared, that if it had been then res integra, they should have judged it to be no settlement: and now it appears to be so; as the two supposed precedents were no precedents at all, being prior to 8 & 9 W. III.-By the Court: The authority of these cases will be just the same, whether the facts were prior to the statute or not: because the Court determined them as upon facts subsequent to the statute. And there having been many determinations the other way, the Court were unanimously of opinion, that for the sake of certainty, it was best to adhere to settled determinations. Though there might be room for great doubt upon this point, if the matter (a) But in Rex v. Adson, post, 377, it was held, that forty days' service under such yearly hiring, was not necessary to gain a settlement. were again open, yet the rule stare decisis is always proper, and especially First, of conin these cases of settlements (a). Rex v. Adson, 5 T. R. 98; 2 Bott, 268; 1 Nol. P. L. 460. The pauper was hired eight days after Old Michaelmas, 1786, to Old Michaelmas following, and continued in his master's service till the day after Old Michaelmas-day, 1787, when he was hired by his master till the Michaelmas following, and under that hiring he served only ten days. The sessions thought that the second hiring was a hiring for a year, but that the pauper had gained no settlement under it, as he had not served forty days subsequent to that hiring. This case was argued in Michaelmas term last, when only Lord Kenyon C. J., and Grose, J., were present. Lord Kenyon was of opinion that a settlement was gained by the hiring and service stated in the case: but Grose, J., being of a different opinion, it stood over for further consideration; and now Lord Kenyon said, that they were both of opinion that the pauper gained a settlement. Rex v. Underbarrow and Bradley-Field, Doug. 309; 1 Nol. P. L. 460. Hallhead was hired for a year, from Whitsuntide, 1770, to Whitsuntide, 1771, to Burrow, for the yearly wages of 18s. She lived with him till the 12th of May, being Old May-day, 1771; her master then removing to a new farm, in Strickland Roger, carried her with him, where she served seven days, which completed her year, and received her wages. Then she hired herself to the same master for another year, from Whitsuntide, 1771, to Whitsuntide, 1772, for the wages of 25s.; and she continued with him in Strickland Roger from Whitsuntide, 1771, till Candlemas, when by mutual consent she quitted her service, and received her wages up to that time.-Lord Mansfield, C. J. We are all very clear that this was a continuance of the same service with an increase of wages. Rex. v. Sutton, 1 East, 656. The pauper hired himself by the week to Mr. Hatch, of Sutton. Nothing was said about Sunday in the contract; but the pauper worked on that day occasionally when asked by his master, without receiving any additional wages; though he sometimes received some victuals. He received his wages every Saturday night or Sunday morning: he did not reside in his master's house, but boarded himself. At the end of nine months, on his master's family servant going away, the pauper was hired in his place for a year, at 12. per annum, and served eleven months under that hiring.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. It has now been too long settled to be recalled, that if there be a hiring for a year, and a service for a year, though but a small part of the service were performed under the yearly hiring, a settlement will be gained. But an attempt has been made to introduce a new head of settlement law, of which I have no knowledge, under a notion that only services, ejusdem generis, as it has been said, can be joined. The term got into fashion some time ago. At that period Mr. J. Foster thought that settlements were too easily acquired by the construction which the Court was inclined to put on the statute: but since then the leaning has been in favour of them; and it has been supposed that a person ought to gain a settlement in that parish where he has laboured for a certain time, as a reward for his labour: a strange idea, if examined; because somewhere or other he must at any rate be maintained, if he be in want of it. I know not how to state this as a question upon which any doubt can be made. The pauper was hired by the week; nothing was said about Sunday; it is very seldom that there is: why then is that day to be excluded? If a servant be hired for a year, nobody doubts but that Sundays are included: then why not included in a weekly hiring, if no exception be made? The sessions have found that there was a hiring by the week, which must mean the whole week. There is nothing stated to shew it was otherwise intended. The pauper was paid sometimes on the Saturday, sometimes on the Sunday; and whenever the master ordered (a) Upon searching the records, it has appeared, that the case of Rex v. Overton, was after the 8 & 9 W. III., and the mistake arose from the errors of the several reporters of that case, as necting services, &c. So a hiring and service for less than a year, and then a hiring for a year, but only ten days' service under the yearly hiring, will gain a settlement. A hiring and ser vice for a year, and then a hir- year at higher wages, and service for part is a continuance of the same service; and the of the latter year, settlement is in the parish where the service con cluded. Services similar and dissimilar, may be connect ed. First, of connecting services, &c. Service for a year, partly under a weekly, a yearly hiring, gives a settle ment. him to do any work on the Sunday, he did it: what is to be concluded from thence, but that it was his duty to do so? How do these facts shew that he was not under the master's control on the Sundays as well as other days of the week? In Rex v. Wrington, it appeared from the circumstances that Sundays were excluded. But it is said, that the services cannot be joined, because they were not ejusdem generis. I really know not what that means, nor where the line is to be drawn. Suppose a postillion were made coachman, would those be deemed services ejusdem generis? It is said, that he at first was an out-door servant, and then a family-servant; but I do not know what difference that made in his services. Upon the whole, I cannot do better than what the justices below have done; they have determined that there was a continuing service for a year, and a hiring for a year, and that he gained a settlement; and I think they are warranted by the authorities in that conclusion. Rex v. Bagworth, Cald. 179; 2 Bott, 378. S. Ward was, by an order of two justices, removed from Bagworth to Ratby. Order quashed. Case: Nine and partly under weeks before Old Mich. 1780, the pauper was hired by W. Hunt, of Ratby, by the week, and served him till Old Michaelmas, when she was hired for a year from that time, and served till about a fortnight before the following Old Michaelmas, when being with child, she and her master parted by consent, and she received her wages up to that time. That she was employed in the same manner during the time she served by the week, as under the hiring after Michaelmas.-Willes, J. The question raised upon the merits is perfectly clear; the pauper did not live in this family occasionally, or work merely as a day-labourer or char-woman, but constantly as a menial servant, and employed throughout in the same services; and a hiring for a year, with a year's service in the whole, and that of a similar nature throughout, though it is made up of several hirings, (provided there be no discontinuance,) gives a settlement.-Buller, J. Here is a continuance in the service for a year: and it has been long settled, that where the service extends throughout the year, you may couple any number of preceding hirings and services with a hiring for a year; the extent and duration of the several preceding services, "where such services have been similar," have never been adjudged to vary the law, but there must be one entire hiring for a year. Exception to the rule in the above cases. (a) Service under a void hiring (as was an appren Rex v. Wrington, Burr. S. C. 280; 2 Bott, 270; 1 Nol. P. L. 373, 454. Ann Stokes, the pauper, when thirteen years of age, went to Chew Magna to her aunt; and soon afterwards went to Windford, and worked with Nicholas Walker, cloth-worker, in the business of burling cloths, by a weekly hiring. She continued to work with Walker for a year and a half. On the last Saturday of the service, the pauper covenanted to serve Walker for a year, at 17. 10s. wages; entered immediately into the service, and continued therein eleven months.-By the Court: The pauper did not acquire a settlement by this service. For though a subsequent service for less than a year, performed under a hiring for a year, may be coupled to a prior service, which was not performed under a hiring for a year, provided it be a continuance of the same service, yet the subsequent service cannot, in the present case, be coupled with the former, because the former hiring was not of the same kind with the latter: the former was as a day-labourer, or weekly labourer at the most; not as a hired servant, who is part of the master's family. (a) Rex v. Dawlish, 1 B. & A. 280. Order of removal from Clyst Honiton to where the pauper Dawlish, confirmed. Case: The pauper, by indenture, dated September 3, 1804, was bound apprentice by the parish of Broadhembury to R. Pearcy of that place, till she should attain the age of twenty-one: whilst under this indenture, she served J. Blackmore, with Pearcy's consent, for two years in Dawlish; after which, in May, 1812, she hired herself as a yearly servant tice), will con nect. There was a year's service after the indentures had expired. (a) The distinction between this and the two preceding cases seems to be, that in this the service was as an artizan, and the Sundays were excluded; see Lord Kenyon's judgment in Rex v. Sut ton (ante, 377); whereas in the two former cases, the paupers were menial or domestic servants, and there was no exemption from service on Sundays. to Mrs. Bryant of Clyst Honiton, for 41. a-year. In the September following the indentures expired. At the end of her year, the pauper again hired for another year to Mrs. Bryant, and served ten months under this last hiring. There was no interruption between the two services. The first year's service with Mrs. Bryant, was without the knowledge of Pearcy. After argument, Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said, If this were res integra there might be some difficulty in admitting the principle that a service without a contract, might be coupled with service under one, so as to gain a settlement; but that having been decided, this case ranges itself under the same class.-Abbott, J., said, The first contract was either valid or void; if valid, then there is a good hiring and a good service; if void, then the first year's service will be a service under no contract at all, which, according to the argument, it is admitted may be coupled with the service under the second hiring. In either case a settlement is gained. But the whole year's service must be under contracts creat of master and servant. Rex v. St. Mary Kedwelly, 2 B. & C. 750; 4 D. & R. 309; 2 D. & R. Mag. Ca. 291. This case is stated at length under the title of Imperfect Apprenticeships, post. The Court were of opinion that the first contract created the relation of master and scholar, and it was contended that service under ing the relation that contract would connect with service under a hiring as a servant. Rex v. Dawlish was quoted, and Bayley, J., said, There a year's service was performed after the expiration of the indenture; and, in giving judgment, he said, to gain a settlement by hiring and service, the service must be under a contract creating the relation of master and servant. Here the first contract created the relation of teacher and scholar, and the service under it not being under a contract of hiring, cannot be coupled with the subsequent service.-Littledale, J. The service must be for a year under a contract or contracts, creating the relation of master and servant. Rex v. Croscombe, 2 Stra. 1240; Burr. S. C. 256; 1 Nol. P. L. 445, 447. Joseph Garnsey was removed from Croscombe to St. Cuthbert's. Order quashed. Case: The pauper hired himself for a year to Dr. Lucy, and lived a year with him in St. Andrew's, and had his wages and livery; and without coming to any new agreement, continued with him a quarter of a year longer. Then he removed with his master to St. Cuthbert's, where he continued to live with him about six months, still under the same contract. It was urged, that this was not the same service, for that the first contract was completed and determined. It had gained the servant a settlement in St. Andrew's, by serving a whole year there. To which it was replied, That it is the constant practice for servants to go on upon the first agreement without any new one. And if this were not the case, then a servant who had lived with his master twenty years in different parishes without any new contract, must be settled in the parish where his master had lived in the first year of his service. And by the whole Court: as there was a hiring for a year, and a continuance under the same service, it is sufficient to gain a settlement; and such settlement must be in the parish where the service was performed the last forty days. Rex v. Apethorpe, 2 B. & C. 892; 4 D. & R. 487. The pauper was hired, about six years ago, to Mr. Gilby, of Brigstock, for a year, to commence at Old Michaelmas, the whole of which service he performed at Brigstock, sleeping in that parish. Before the end of the year, Gilby hired the pauper from the following Old Michaelmas to the New Michaelmas. There was no interruption of the service; and under the second hiring, the pauper served his master about half a year in Brigstock, and then removed with him to Sudborough, where he finished his service under such hiring.-Per Bayley, J. If the pauper gained any settlement in Sudborough, it would follow, that wherever there was once a hiring for a year, and the pauper afterwards continued with the master as a weekly servant for twenty years, and resided in twenty different parishes, he would be settled in the parish where he resided for the last forty days, although at that time he were not hired for a year. It appears to me that Rex v. Croscombe does not bear upon the present case. There the pauper hired himself to live with Dr. Lucy as his servant for a year, for 41. and a livery; he did accordingly live with his master during that year, and without coming to any new agreement, continued with his master in the same parish A hiring for a year, and a serbeyond the year vice continued for six months, without a new agreement, gains a settlement in the service was performed for the last forty days. the place where A settlement can be gained by hiring and service only in that parish where the party has the servant hired for a year. character of a First, of connecting services, &c. The about quarter of a year longer. The master then removed to another |