of the legislature that the year's service should be under one and the same hiring; and probably if they had expressed their meaning both as to the hiring and the service in one statute, they would have expressed it clearly and without doubt. But as the above statute only requires that the servant shall continue and abide in the same service for a year, without requiring it to be under the same hiring, the court have holden that if he remain in the same service for one continuous period of a year, under any number of consecutive hirings, one of which is a yearly hiring, it will be sufficient to gain a settlement within the meaning of the statutes. Thus where a girl, nine weeks before Michaelmas, hired until Michaelmas at weekly wages, and then hired with the same master for a year at yearly wages, and served until within a fortnight of the end of the time, when she was turned off for being pregnant: the court held that she gained a settlement by this hiring and service; all the statutes required was, a hiring for a year, and a service for a year, but they did not require that the whole of the service should be under the yearly hiring; if there were several consecutive hirings, one of them being a, hiring for a year, and there be a continued uninterrupted service of a year under all, it is sufficient (d). So, where the pauper served nine months under a weekly hiring, and then hired with the same master for a year, and served eleven months under the yearly hiring: the court held that he gained a settlement (e). It was at one time thought that a service thus under a weekly hiring, could not be coupled with a service under a yearly hiring (f); but the contrary is now well established. Where the pauper was hired from Christmas to Michaelmas, and served, and was then hired by the same master for a year, and served until Midsummer: the court held that as there was a year's service in fact, though not all under the yearly hiring, the pauper thereby gained a settlement (g). And the same, where a man hired from Ladyday to Christmas, and served and then hired with the same master for a year, and served until May (h). And the same, where a girl hired from Christmas to Whitsuntide, and served, and then hired with the same master until the Whitsuntide following, but served only until March (i). So, where a girl hired for half a year, and served, and then hired for a year, and served the half of it, the court held that she thereby gained a settlement (k). (d) R. v. Bayworth, Cald. 179. 280. (g) R. v. Aynhoe, 2 Bott, 251. (h) Hamner v. Ellesmere, 1 Str. 878; 1 Barnard. 378. (i) R. v. Underbarrow and Bradley Field, Burr. S. C. 545. S. P. Eardisland v. Leominster, 2 Bott, 253. (k) R. v. South Molton, 1 Ld. Raym. 426. S. P. Bightwell v. Westhallam, 1 Sess. Ca. 87. Ter 7 طلعة A mi declared, that ! he adjudged or 1st narist, or town ar in the same ver C. In one Wisuntide, en 4:sune 21st May), Vasmade following whit sh Teng ragnant: the had the shears she had served a TRAZIE A nc had therefore Knimal case, where a of the legislature that the year's service should be under one and the same hiring; and probably if they had expressed their meaning both as to the hiring and the service in one statute, they would have expressed it clearly and without doubt. But as the above statute only requires that the servant shall continue and abide in the same service for a year, without requiring it to be under the same hiring, the court have holden that if he remain in the same service for one continuous period of a year, under any number of consecutive hirings, one of which is a yearly hiring, it will be sufficient to gain a settlement within the meaning of the statutes. Thus where a girl, nine weeks before Michaelmas, hired until Michaelmas at weekly wages, and then hired with the same master for a year at yearly wages, and served until within a fortnight of the end of the time, when she was turned off for being pregnant: the court held that she gained a settlement by this hiring and service; all the statutes required was, a hiring for a year, and a service for a year, but they did not require that the whole of the service should be under the yearly hiring; if there were several consecutive hirings, one of them being a, hiring for a year, and there be a continued uninterrupted service of a year under all, it is sufficient (d). So, where the pauper served nine months under a weekly hiring, and then hired with the same master for a year, and served eleven months under the yearly hiring: the court held that he gained a settlement (e). It was at one time thought that a service thus under a weekly hiring, could not be coupled with a service under a yearly hiring (f); but the contrary is now well established. Where the pauper was hired from Christmas to Michaelmas, and served, and was then hired by the same master for a year, and served until Midsummer: the court held that as there was a year's service in fact, though not all under the yearly hiring, the pauper thereby gained a settlement (g). And the same, where a man hired from Ladyday to Christmas, and served and then hired with the same master for a year, and served until May (h). And the same, where a girl hired from Christmas to Whitsuntide, and served, and then hired with the same master until the Whitsuntide following, but served only until March (i). So, where a girl hired for half a year, and served, and then hired for a year, and served the half of it, the court held that she thereby gained a settlement (k). (i) R. v. Underbarrow and Bradley Field, Burr. S. C. 545. S. P. Eardisland v. Leominster, 2 Bott, 253. (k) R. v. South Molton, 1 Ld. Raym. 426. S. P. Bightwell v. Westhallam, 1 Sess. Ca. 87. Ter i ir a year, from i vita seven days of the The master to Strick#annys there; she The same mese ir mother year to Whit- The 2 bed that her continuing CAT II A Lite is gether more than a year, mi has master, being So, where a pauper Or in the work there, and he served IMAL ten days of the end Meg and they parted: the court gs but at Brandre fery days under the single pattement there w. So, where a POLE IN DEN Luths bere the expiration of Der and to Mother fe a year, and served, the nerve for another year, and the court tell that she thereby gained a sement; not being war when she contracted the first brag, der service der er teght maths after the endmig at the apprenticeship must be deemed to have been withear peract, and might be coupled with the service under the yearly bring. So, where the pauper hired from November i Menaelmas, and two days before Michaelmas his master offered bin certain wages for the next year, which he refused; on Michaelmas-day the master offered him higher wares, which in two days after he consented to take; but during these two days he never quitted his master's service, but ecntiuced to do his work as usual: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; the law would imply a hiring for the two days from the service; and then there were three hirings one of which was a yearly hiri service under the three of more than cient to confer a settlement (p). So, 18th October hired for fifty-one we 9th October lowing; and on the (1) R. Bradley 65. (m) R hired with the same master for a year, and served until about three weeks of the end of it, when the contract was dissolved; and it was objected that he gained no settlement, because the day of the 10th October intervening between the two hirings was not covered by any contract: but the court held that as the pauper had served continuously from the first hiring to the dissolution of the last, the law would presume a hiring for the single intervening day, and the pauper would accordingly gain a settlement (q). But where a person hired for half a year and served, and then hired for another half year and served: the court held that he gained no settlement, although the services were continuous: for it is essential that one of the hirings should be for a year (r). So, where the first contract was an imperfect apprenticeship, and under the second, which was a hiring for a year, the party served only six months: the court held that he gained no settlement; for an imperfect apprenticeship, not being a hiring at all within the statute, could not be coupled with the yearly hiring, so as to allow of the services under them being connected (s). So, where a boy hired for eleven months, and served, and then went home to his father for a week: he then returned, hired again for eleven months, and served, and then went home to his father for a week; he then came back a third time, hired again for eleven months, and served; and all this was done for the purpose of avoiding a settlement: the court held that he gained none; there was no hiring for a year, nor any connection between the services (t). So, where at the time of the second hiring, the servant was a married man, the court held that the services under the two hirings could not be connected so as to confer a settlement (u). But the fact that the two hirings were at different wages, will not prevent them from being thus connected (v). It has been already observed, that the service under the several hirings must be continuous and uninterrupted; otherwise no settlement can be gained by it. Therefore where a man hired for a year, and served until within three weeks of the expiration of it, when he was discharged by his own consent, and went to London; in a fortnight he returned, and again went into the same service, and in about a fortnight afterwards, his master hired him for another year, and he served six months: the court held that he gained no settlement by these hirings and services; not under the first hiring, (u) R. v. Great Chilton, 5 T. R. R. v. St. Giles's, Reading, Cald. 54. |