this to be a dissolution of the contract (1). Where a girl, hired at yearly wages from the 12th of October, served until the 29th of September following, when her mistress getting a new servant she consented to leave, and was paid her whole year's wages;、 the court held this to be a dissolution (m). So, where a girl hired for a year on the 18th October, with liberty to part on a month's notice, and a month before Old Michaelmas she gave notice that she would leave at Old Michaelmas; at that time her mistress, in paying her wages, told her she wanted a week of serving her year, and she then offered to serve a week, but the mistress said it was no matter as she had hired another servant in her place: the court held that the contract was put an end to by the notice, and that the servant therefore gained no settlement (n). Where a yearly servant, after serving nine months, requested his master to discharge him, but the master refused unless he would find another man to work in his place, and he accordingly found one and left; the pauper swore that his master said upon that occasion, "If this man do any otherwise than well, I can send for you and make you serve your time out," to which the servant answered "Very well," but the master swore that he recollected no such thing, and that he had no intention to take the servant back: the sessions held this to be a dissolution of the contract: and the court, as the sessions had contradictory evidence before them, refused to disturb their decision (o).

In case of dismissal.] Where a yearly servant, three days before the end of his year, desiring to be discharged from the service, having got married and not wishing to be settled in the parish, he and his master went before a magistrate, who by his order discharged the servant: the court held that as this was done with the consent of both parties, and there appeared to be no fraud upon the part of the master, it was a dissolution of the contract, and the servant gained no settlement (p). So, where a yearly servant was discharged by his own desire, and went to London, the court held it to be a dissolution of his contract, although he afterwards came back, and served the remainder of his year (9). So where a yearly servant served until within nine days of the end of his year, and then went on a Sunday to hire with another master, and returned on the Tuesday morning, and having asked his master what work he should go to, the latter said he might go serve the master he worked for the day before; the

(1) R. v. Castlechurch, Burr. S. C. 68; 2 Str. 1022.

(m) R. v. St. Peter Mancroft, 8 T. R. 477.

(n) R. v. Rushall, 7 East, 471.

(0) R. v. Mildenhall, 12 East,

482.

(p) R. v. North Basham, Cald. 566.

(q) R. v. Caverswall, Burr. S. C. 461, ante, p. 489.

master then paid him his wages, and he went away, but he wished to have remained if his master would have allowed him: the court held that the contract was put an end to the master having paid, and the servant received, the wages for the time served, they could not presume that the latter remained any longer under the control of the former (r). So, where a yearly servant having married about two months before the expiration of his year, his master said he would employ him no longer; the servant offered to leave if the master would pay him his year's wages, which the master refused, but ultimately the servant took his wages up to the time, and parted with his own consent: the court held that these latter words so clearly and unequivocally indicated a dissolution of the contract, they would not allow the case to be argued (8). So, where a yearly servant, after having served a quarter of a year, quarrelled with his master, and his master insisted upon turning him off, threw down a quarter's wages, which the servant took up and went away; six days afterwards, however, at the request of the master, he returned into the service, served the remainder of the year, and was paid the remainder of the year's wages; the court held that he gained no settlement by these services, for the hiring was dissolved at the end of the first quarter (t). So, where the pauper was hired for a year to one Miles, but ran away on the third day; he then hired to one Whitby for a year, and after he had served the half of it, Miles insisted on Whitby's discharging him, and he was discharged accordingly, his wages to the time paid to him, and he hired with another person; in a fortnight afterwards, however, at Whitby's request, and with the consent of Miles, he returned to Whitby's service, and served the remainder of the year: the court held that he gained no settlement by his services with Whitby, for the contract was dissolved at the end of the first half year (u). So, where a girl was hired for a year, at the wages of 558., and (if she behaved well) two pounds of wool; when she had served about eight months, a dispute occurring between her and her master, he disinissed her from his service; the girl however not wishing to go, applied to a magistrate, who made an order requiring the master either to take her back or pay her the whole year's wages; the master accordingly elected to pay, and paid, the year's wages, and the girl then offered her services to others: the court held this to be a dissolution of the contract; the master elected to dissolve it, and the girl, by receiving the wages, and offering her services to others, showed her assent to the dissolution (v). Where a master dismisses his servant for good and sufficient

(r) R. v. Clayhydon, 4 T. R. 100.
(s) R. v. Seagrave, Cald. 247.
(t) R. v. Gresham, 1 T. R. 101.

(u) R. v. Ross, Burr. S. C. 688. (v) R. v. King's Pyon, 4 East,

351.

cause, before the end of the year's services, it is a dissolution of the contract, although the servant do not assent to it. And therefore where a female servant, three weeks before the end of the year in which she was hired, was turned off by her master, on account of her being pregnant: the court held it to be a dissolution of the contract, although she was turned off without her consent, and although the whole year's wages were paid to her (w); pregnancy being deemed a good and sufficient cause for a master to discharge a female servant from his service (x). So, where a man servant was turned off by his master, three weeks before the end of the year for which he had hired, on account of a criminal intimacy between him and a female servant, whom the master also turned off for being pregnant: the court held it to be a dissolution, and that the servant gained no settlement by the hiring and service (y). So, where the pauper, who was hired for a year from the 31st March, served until the 25th of March following, when he went with his master's consent to a mop or meeting for the hiring of servants, and coming home drunk at three o'clock in the morning, the master said he should immediately leave his service, and tendered him his wages up to the time, which the pauper refused; upon application by the pauper to a magistrate on the 25th, the master was ordered to pay the full wages less 28. 6d., and the pauper on the 27th hired himself to another master: the court held that he gained no settlement by this hiring and service: the contract was put an end to by the master on the 26th, and the pauper, by hiring to another on the 27th, showed that he consented to it (z). But where a master complained to a magistrate of a man servant, for having married a woman who was pregnant, and the magistrate thinking this a good ground for discharging the servant, allowed of his discharge, but made no written order upon the subject; the master accordingly discharged him, but against the servant's consent: the court held that this was no sufficient ground for discharging the servant; and therefore the discharge, not being consented to by the servant, was a mere nullity, and the servant gained a settlement by his hiring and service (a). And the same, in all cases where a servant is discharged before the end of his year, without sufficient cause, against or without his consent. Therefore where a girl hired with a farmer, who in three weeks afterwards died: but she continued to serve the widow and sons, who carried on the farm, until within three weeks of the end of the year, when one of the sons, having quarrelled with her for some trifling cause, turned her off, and paid her her wages, although she

(w) R. v. Brampton, Cald.11. (x) R. v. Marlborough, 12 Mod. 402.

(y) R. v. Welford, Cald. 57.

(z) R. v. Leigh, 7 East, 539. (a) R. v. Hanbury, Burr. S. C. 322; Say. 100.

was willing and offered to stay: the court held that this was no dissolution of the contract; she was forced to leave the service, and her offering to serve the remainder of the year was equivalent to serving (b). So, where a servant, having served within eight days of her year, upon a difference between her and her mistress, gave the latter warning that she would leave at the end of her year; and the mistress thereupon immediately hired another servant in her place, discharged the first servant, and paid her the entire year's wages, which she accepted, and went away, although she would have remained until the end of the year if her mistress would have allowed her the court held that this was no dissolution of the contract; discharging the servant was a wrongful act of the mistress, submitted to, but not agreed to, by the pauper; and to dissolve the contract in such a case, there must be the consent of both parties (c). So, where a female servant was hired for a year, but sometime afterwards falling sick, her master turned her off without giving her anything: the court held, that notwithstanding the discharge, she gained a settlement (d). But where a yearly servant having served until within three days of the end of his year, was abused, thrown down, and turned out of doors by his master, who had returned home drunk; the next day the master wished him to come back, but he refused, and threatened to complain of the ill usage, unless the master would pay him the whole year's wages, which the master accordingly paid him, making some deduction for a former absence; and he left the service, contrary to his master's express request: the court held this to be a dissolution of the contract; the servant refused to return to the service, and after the master had paid him his wages, the relation of master and servant no longer existed between them (e).

Where a master discharges his yearly servant because he is about to leave the country, or has become bankrupt, or no longer has occasion for his services, it is usually considered a dispensation only, and not a dissolution of the contract, if the servant remained unhired to any other person during the remainder of the year. Where the pauper hired in London, on the 11th June, and served until the April following, when her master, having taken a manufactory in Manchester, told her she might either look out for another place, or remain with him until he should leave London; she preferred the latter, and remained with him until the 4th of June following, when he paid her the whole year's wages, and went to reside at

(b) R. v. Hardhorn with Newton, 12 East, 51.

(c) R. v. St. Philip in Birmingham, 2 T. R. 624.

(d) R. v. Hardingham, Stiles, 168. (e) R. v. Grantham, 4 T. R.

754.

Manchester the court held this to be a dispensation only, and that the pauper gained a settlement (ƒ). So, where a female servant served until within a week of the end of the year, when her master quitted his residence on account of a prosecution against him for keeping a gaming-house, and he paid her the whole year's wages, telling her he had no longer occasion for her services; she would have remained the entire year, if he would have kept her, and he would have kept her in his service if he had not been obliged to leave his house; upon being discharged she went to her sister's, and remained unhired the remainder of the year: the court held that as the servant had been discharged without her consent, this was a dispensation only, and not a dissolution of the contract, and that consequently she gained a settlement by the hiring and service (g). So, where the master of a yearly servant becoming bankrupt, and the messenger taking possession of his house, five days before the end of the year, the mistress discharged the servant, paying her the full year's wages: the court held that the bankruptcy was no dissolution of the contract, without the servant's consent, and that therefore the servant gained a settlement (h). But where the pauper, who had hired for a year with a farmer, served until within twenty-eight days of the end of the year, when his master quitted the farm, sold off his stock, and discharged the pauper and his other servants, paying them their full wages, and telling them they might go where they wished; and the pauper accordingly hired himself to another master for the remaining twenty-eight days, and worked for him with his master's knowledge: the court held this to be a dissolution of the contract; the relation of master and servant ceased, when the pauper was discharged (i).

In case of another contract being substituted.] Where there is a hiring for a year, but before the expiration of the year another contract is substituted for it, with the consent of both parties, this amounts to a dissolution of the first contract. It is often a matter of doubt, however, whether the facts amount to a substitution of another contract for the original hiring. Where a man hired for a year from Martinmas, at yearly wages, and served under it until the May-day following; being then married, he entered into a new agreement with his master, to serve him as a hind upon another farm for a year from that date, at weekly wages, with a house to live in rent free, and some other perquisites; and under this

48.

(f) R. v. St. Bartholomew, Cald.

(g) R. v. St. Mary, Lambeth, 8 T. R. 236.

(h) R. v. St. Andrew, Holborn, 2 T. R. 627.

(i) R. v. Bray, 3 M. & S. 20.