the neighbourhood, after which he supported himself by his earnings as a molecatcher for some years,-during all which time he resided separately from his father, and he then married; when the son was about seventeen, the father acquired another settlement, and the question was, whether the son was entitled to this settlement: the court held that he was, as he was then unemancipated; they said that during the minority of a child, there can be no emancipation, unless he marry, and so become himself the head of a family, or contract some other relation, so as wholly and permanently to exclude the parental control (t). So, where a young man, at the age of twenty, left his father and went to sea, and did not return until after he was of age, and in the mean time, and before the boy was of age, the father gained a settlement: the court held that as the father gained a settlement before the son was twentyone, the son was entitled to it, as he was not until then emancipated (u). So, where a girl resided with her father's relations, and was supported by them, and one of them left by his will a fund for her maintenance until she should be of age; in the mean time, when she was of the age of eighteen, her father acquired a settlement, and the question was whether she was entitled to it: the court held that she was, as she could not be deemed emancipated until she attained the age of twenty-one (v). So, where a boy of fifteen was apprenticed for four years to a certificate-man, and served, living all the while separate from his father, but returned to him upon the expiration of his apprenticeship, the court held that he was not emancipated; the apprenticeship being to a certificate-man, the boy gained no settlement by it, and then by his return to his father within age, he was reincorporated into his father's family (w). It would have been otherwise, of course, if he had gained a settlement by his apprenticeship (x). And if he be residing separately from his parents when he arrives at the age of twenty-one, he is then deemed to be emancipated. And therefore where a young man went to sea at the age of fifteen, and served as a sailor away from his father for ten years, but without gaining any settlement in his own right; and the father gained a settlement at Limehouse before the son attained the age of twenty-one, and another at Gravesend after, and it became a question to which of these settlements the son was entitled: the court held that as he (t) R. v. Wilmington, 5 B. & A. 525. S. P. R. v. Stretton, 2 Bott, 47. R. v. Offchurch, 3 T. R. 114. R. v. Tottington, Lower End, Cald. 284. (u) R. v. Lytchet Matravers, 7 B. & C. 226. (v) R. v. Uckfield, 5 M. & S. 214. (w) R. v. Hardwicke, 11 East, 578. S. P. R. v. Halifax, Burr. S. C. 806. R. v. Edgworth, 3 T. R. 353. R. v. Huggate, 2 B. & A. 582, (x) R. v. Silton, 1 Wils. 184; Burr. S. C. 269. was living away from his father at the age of twenty-one, he then became emancipated, and of course was entitled, not to the settlement at Gravesend, but to that at Limehouse (a). So, where a young man, at the age of nineteen, enlisted and went abroad, and remained in the service ten years, during which time, but after he had attained the age of twenty-one, his father acquired a settlement: the court held that the son was not entitled to that settlement; for by enlisting and continuing to place himself under the control of others until after he was twenty-one, he ceased to be a member of his father's family, and his father ceased to have any control over him; and therefore, being emancipated at the time his father acquired the settlement, that settlement was not communicated to him (b). So, where a young man, at the age of eighteen, was drawn for the militia, and served in it for five years; and in his absence, after he had attained the age of twenty-one, his father acquired a settlement: the court held that he was not entitled to this settlement; they said that where a child is separated from its parent, and does not return until after twenty-one, he ceases to be a member of the parent's family, and is deemed emancipated; and as the son in this case was emancipated before his father acquired the settlement, he was of course not entitled to it (c). But where the child, who had enlisted in the marines and went abroad, was discharged, and returned to and resided with his father before he was twentyone, and lived with him until after he had attained that age: the court held that he was not emancipated by his enlistment; but if he had not returned from the marines until after he was twenty-one, he would have been emancipated, and his emancipation would have had relation back to the enlistment (d). Also where a son, with the consent of his father, entered as a drummer in the same militia regiment of which his father was sergeant, and remained in it until after he was twenty-one, living all the time with his father, except when he was on duty: the court held that he was not emancipated; although in the militia he was still a member of his father's family, and under his control (e). So, where a young man having lived with his father up to the age of seventeen years, then left his father's house, and never afterwards returned to it; and upon leaving his father he voluntarily entered the local militia for four years, and served twenty-eight days in each year, but (a) R. v. Lanford, 8 B. & C. 271. S. P. St. Michael's in Norwich v. St. Matthew's in Ipswich, 2 Str. 831. R. v. Cowhoneyborne, 10 East, 88. (b) R. v. Stanwix, 5 T. R. 670. S. P. R. v. Walpole, St. Peter's, Burr. S. C. 638; 1 W. BI. 669. (e) R. v. Woburn, 8 T. R. 279. 1 during the rest of the year he lived with an uncle, and maintained himself by weaving, in a different parish from that in which his father resided; when he was eighteen, his father acquired a new settlement in another parish; and when he was twenty he married: the court held that he was not emancipated until his marriage, and that consequently he was entitled to the new settlement which his father had acquired (ƒ). But where an idiot, after he had arrived at the age of twentyone, was separated from his parents, the court held that he was not thereby emancipated; for being incapable of maintaining or taking care of himself, he could never be deemed to be emancipated; and therefore he was at all times entitled to any settlement his parent might acquire (g). SECTION II. Illegitimate Children. An illegitimate child, born on or before the 14th August, 1834, being nullius filius, had no settlement by parentage; its place of birth, as we have already seen (h), was its place of settlement. But by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 71, "every child which shall be born a bastard after the passing of this Act [14 August, 1834], shall have and follow the settlement of the mother of such child, until such child shall attain the age of sixteen, or shall acquire a settlement in its own right." And if the mother marry before that time, the child acquires the settlement of the mother's husband (i). But if the mother have no settlement, then the child will be entitled to its birth settlement, and may be removed to it, as before the statute (k). There is an ambiguity in the words "shall have and follow" in the above section. But in a case very recently decided (1), the court held that as soon as such illegitimate child attains the age of sixteen, he ceases to have or follow the settlement of the mother, and he then falls back upon the settlement he would have had if the statute had never passed, namely, his settlement by birth, and which he retains until he acquire a settlement in his own right. (f) R. v. Scammonden, 15 Law J. 30, m.; 8 Q. B. 349. (g) R. v. Much Cowarne, 2 B. & Ad. 861. (h) Ante, p. 407. 12 Law J. 68, m.; S. C. MS. E., 29th April, 1843. (k) R. v. St. Giles in the Fields, 18 Shaw's J. 522. (1) R. v. St. Andrew in Worces (i) R. v. St. Mary, Newington, ter, 22 Law J. 39, m. CHAPTER IV. Settlement by Hiring and Service. It is necessary to premise, that by stat. 4 & 5 W. 4, c. 76, s. 64, it is enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, [14 August, 1834], "no settlement shall be acquired by hiring and service, or by residence under the same." And by sect. 65, "no person under any contract of hiring and service, not completed at the time of the passing of this Act, shall acquire, or be deemed or adjudged to have acquired, any settlement by reason of such hiring and service, or of any residence under the same." And where a servant hired for a less time than a year, and afterwards hired with the same mistress for a year, and had served more than a year continuously under the two hirings, before the passing of the statute, but had not then completed an entire year's service under the yearly hiring the court held that the servant gained no settlement by these hirings and this service (a). So, where the pauper hired on the 30th November, 1828, and served her mistress continuously until 1837; the last forty days of her year before the passing of this Act, namely, the last forty days before the 30th November, 1833, she resided with her mistress in the parish of St. Pancras, but the last forty before the 14th August, 1834, she resided with her mistress in the parish of St. Mary-le-bone: the court held that she gained a settlement in St. Pancras (b). We must confine our attention, therefore, to hirings and services, where the service was completed on or before the 14th August, 1834. And I propose to treat the subject in the following order : (a) R. v. Rittenden, 6 Ad. & El. 296. R. v. St. John the Evangelist, Id. 300, n. (b) R. v. St. Pancras, 12 Law J. 130, m. Settlement by Hiring and Service. SECT. 1. Who might or might not acquire it, p. 441. 2. The hiring, p. 447. 3. Service, p. 476. 4. Residence, p. 500. SECTION I. Who might or might not acquire a Settlement by Hiring and Service. Infants, 443. Foreigners, &c., 443. settlement in the same parish, 443. Soldiers, militiamen, &c., 443. Persons already having a Apprentices, &c., 445. Exceptions by statute, 446. By stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 7, "if any unmarried person, not having child or children, shall be lawfully hired into any parish or town for one year, such service shall be adjudged and deemed a good settlement therein." But as this statute mentioned nothing as to length of service, it was enacted and declared by stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, s. 4, " that no such person so hired as aforesaid, shall be adjudged or deemed to have a good settlement in any such parish or township, unless such person shall continue and abide in the same service during the space of one whole year." Unmarried Persons.] To gain a settlement by hiring and service, the party hiring must be unmarried; and a widower or widow is an unmarried person within the meaning of the statute, as appears evidently from the subsequent words "not having child or children," which of course mean legitimate children. And the party's being unmarried at the time the contract is stipulated to take effect, will be sufficient within the meaning of the Act, although married at the time the contract was actually made. Therefore where a married man was hired on the 6th Feb. for a year to commence on the 24th, and his wife died on the 18th; after which on the 24th he entered the service and served: the court held that this was in substance a hiring on the 24th, and the party being then unmarried he gained a settlement by the hiring and service (c). So, where a married woman hired for a year at Whitsuntide, (c) R. v. Bank Newton, Burr. S. C. 455. |