pinder for the whole town and parish; and therefore that the pinder gained no settlement by serving the office (q). So, where the pauper proved, that one day, upon his return home, his wife told him that the borsholder of the borough had left a tally for him, as a token that he had been chosen borsholder at the court leet, but she had burnt it; and that he once executed a warrant directed to the borsholder; but no presentment of the leet, or any other evidence of the appointment, was given the court said that this was but hearsay, and no evidence of the appointment (r). Where, however, a man was appointed tithing-man at the leet, and served, but was not sworn into office until half the year had expired, the court were of opinion that he gained a settlement; but the case was decided on another point (s). So, where a man was appointed tithing-man at the leet, and it was there ordered that he should be sworn in before a magistrate within a month, but was never in fact sworn: the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; he was a public annual officer, and served the office on his own account for one whole year, which was all the statute required (t).

The party must have served.] The statute requires that the party should serve the office "during one whole year." And therefore, where a man was duly appointed tithing-man, but served the office only from October to March, the court held that he gained no settlement (u). So, where a man was appointed aletaster by the leet on the 16th November, and served until the 1st November following, when another person was appointed to the office by another court leet then holden: the court held that he gained no settlement (v). So, where a man was duly appointed a borsholder, but in a few days afterwards two magistrates wrongfully discharged him from serving the office, and he did not serve afterwards: the court held that he gained no settlement (w). But where a man was appointed tithing-man for part of a parish only, and served: the court held that it would be sufficient, if the case were unobjectionable in other respects; for the statute merely requires that he shall execute a public annual office in the parish (x).

Residence.] The service of the office must be in the parish in which the party resides. And therefore where the pauper

(q) R. v. Newmarket, St. Mary,

Ad. & El. 151.

(r) Wingham v. Sellinge, 2 Str. 196; Burr. S. C. 223.

(s) Holy Trinity v. Garsington, Set. & Rem. 72.

(t) R. v. Corfe Mullen, 1 B. & Ad. 211.

(u) R. v. Fittleworth, Burr. S. C. 238.

(v) R. v. Bow, 8 T. R. 445. (ro) R. v. Holy Cross, Westgate, 4 B. & A. 619.

(x) R. v. Fittleworth, supra.

in 1820, was duly appointed, by the bailiffs at Ipswich, craneporter at the common quay in that town, which was a public annual office, and he served the office for a year; the duties of the office were performed in the parish of St. Mary, but the pauper resided all the time in the parish of St. Matthew in the same town: the court held that he gained no settlement by serving the office, the words of stat. 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, being sufficiently explicit to show that such a settlement can be gained only by serving an office in the parish in which the party resides (y). But where a man was appointed borsholder, and his family resided the whole of the year in the parish, and he the greater part of the time, but during some portion of the time he used to work out of the parish and return on Sundays: the court held that this absence would not affect the settlement, if the case were unobjectionable in other respects (z). Where a man resided in the parish of St. Mary Callendar, in Winchester, was appointed one of the constables of the city, and served not only in the parish in which he resided, but also in the other parishes of the city: the court held that he gained his settlement in St. Mary's, where he resided (a). So, where a man was appointed clerk and sexton in Llanerchymedd, which was merely a vill and extra-parochial, but resided in the adjoining parish of Amlwch, where he had to perform part of the duties of his office: the court held that he gained a settlement in Amlwch (b). So, where the pauper was appointed sexton to the church of St. James in Liverpool, by the pew owners in vestry; the church and the part of the churchyard in which the corpses were buried were in the parish of Walton; the remainder of the churchyard was in the parish of Liverpool, where most of the pew owners resided; the pauper also during the whole year resided in the parish of Liverpool: the court held that the pauper gained a settlement in the parish in which he resided (c). Where it was objected that the officer was not a householder, but merely resided there in part of a house, which was furnished to him by the master whom he served the court, notwithstanding, held that he gained a settlement (d).

(y) R. v. Woodbridge, 4 B. & Ad. 711.

(z) Wingham v. Sellinge, 2 Str. 1196; Burr. S. C. 223, ante, p. 675.

(a) R. v. St. Maurice in Winchester, 2 Str. 1014; 2 Burr. S. C. 27. S. P. St. Mary v. St. Lawrence

in Reading, 10 Mod. 13. R. v. St. Nicholas, Hereford, 10 B. & C. 832, ante, p. 673.

(b) R. v. Amlwch, 4 B. & C. 757. (c) R. v. Liverpool, 3 T. R. 118. (d) R. v. Corfe Mullen, 1 B. & Ad. 211, ante, p. 675.

CHAPTER X.

Settlement by Certificate-men, or their Servants, &c.

Settlement of certificate-men, | Settlement of their servants 677. or apprentices, 678.

Certificates are now, and have long been, wholly obsolete in practice: it will be sufficient, therefore, if I treat of the settlement of certificate-men very concisely.

In what cases a certificate used to be granted, the form of it, and its effect in evidence, will be treated of hereafter, when we come to treat of the appeal against an order of removal. We shall confine our attention here, therefore, to the cases in which a certificate-man may gain a settlement in the parish in which he resides under the certificate, and to the cases in which apprentices may, and servants formerly might, gain a settlement in the parish to which their master was certificated.

Settlement of certificate-men.] By stat. 9 & 10 W. 3, c. 11, (after reciting the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, as to certificates,) it is enacted, "that no person or persons, who shall come into any parish by any such certificate as aforesaid, shall be adjudged by any Act whatsoever to have procured a legal settlement in such parish, unless he or they shall really and bond fide take a lease of a tenement of the value of 107., or shall execute some annual office in such parish, being legally placed in such office."

A certificate-man may therefore acquire a settlement by renting a tenement in the parish to which he is certificated, in the same manner as any other person (a).

A certificate-man may also acquire a settlement by serving a public annual office in the parish in which he is certificated (b). The words in the above statute, "by any act whatsoever,' mean, by any act whatsoever of the certificate-man. Therefore a certificate-man cannot obtain a settlement by hiring and ser

(a) R. v. Bowling, Burr. S. C. 177. R. v. Butley, 2 Str. 1077; Burr. S. C. 107. St. John's V. Amwell, Str. 529. R. v. Framlingham, Burr. S. C. 748. R. v. Findern, Cald. 426. R. v. Croft, 3 B. & A. 171. R. v. Stapleford, 2 Bott, 114.

(b) Holy Trinity v. Garsington, Set. & Rem. 72. R. v. St. Maurice in Winchester, 2 Str. 1014; Burr. S. C. 27. R. v. St. Mary, Berkhampstead, 2 Sess. Ca. 182. See ante, p. 672.

vice in the parish to which he is certificated (c); although he may in any other parish (d).

Nor can he gain a settlement there by apprenticeship (e), although he may in any other parish (ƒ).

Nor can he gain a settlement there by payment of taxes (g). But the statute does not prevent his gaining a settlement by an estate in the parish which comes to him by descent, or otherwise than by buying it; for in that case he gains the settlement, not by his own act, but by the act of law (h). It is otherwise, however, where the party purchases the estate himself (i).

Nor does the statute prevent his deriving from his father, any settlement the latter gains, whilst the son is unemancipated; for that also is the act of law (k).

Settlement of their servants or apprentices.] By stat. 12 Ann. sess. 1, c. 18, s. 2, after reciting the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30, as to certificates, and reciting that " many persons obtaining and bringing such certificates, do frequently take apprentices bound by indenture, and hire and keep servants by the year, who, by reason of such apprenticeships and services, do gain settlements in, and become a great burthen to such parishes, townships, and places, though such masters coming with such certificates have, by virtue thereof, no settlements in such parishes, townships, or places ;" for remedy whereof it is declared and enacted, "That if any person whatsoever, who, upon or after the 24th of June, 1713, shall be an apprentice, bound by indenture to, or shall, upon or after the said 24th of June, be hired servant to or with any person whatsoever, who did come into or shall reside in any parish, township, or place, in that part of Great Britain called England, by means or licence of such certificate, and not afterwards having gained a legal settlement in such parish, township, or place: such ap

(c) R. v. Sherborne, Burr. S. C. 182.

R. v. Bray, Id. 259. R. v. Letchlade, Id. 380. R. v. Testerton, 5 T. R. 258. R. v. Batheaston, 8 T. R. 446. R. v. Collingbourne Ducis, 4 T. R. 199. R. v. Buckingham, Burr. S. C. 314.

(d) R. v. Horsley, Say. 228; Burr. S. C. 385.

(e) R. v. Alfreton, 7 T. R. 471. R. v. Manningtree, 6 M. & S. 214. R. v. Queenborough, 2 B. & Ad. 219. (f) R. v. Silton, 1 Wils. 184; Burr. S. C. 269. See R. v. Rustington, 6 M. & S. 396.

(g) R. v. St. Nicholas in Harwich, 2 Str. 1163; Burr. S. C. 171.

(h) Burclear v. Eastwoodhay, 1

Str. 163. R. v. Cassington, 2 B. & Ad. 874. R. v. Woburn, Burr. S. C. 785. R. v. Ingleton, Burt. S. C. 560. R. v. Long Wittenham, 2 Bott, 38, 530. R. v. Cold Ashton, Burr. S. C. 444. R. v. Shenaton, Burr. S. C. 468. R. v. Wirelingham, Doug. 767; Cald. 121. R. v. Ufton, 3 T. R. 231.

(i) R. v. Great Driffield, 8 B. & C. 684, overruling R. v. Deddington, 2 Str. 1193; Burr. S. C. 220; and Iringhoe v. Stonebridge, 1 Str. 265; and see R. v. Mattingley, 2 T. R. 12. R. v. Warbling

ton, 1 T. R. 241.
(k) R. v. Leck Wootton, 16 East,
118.

prentice, by virtue of such apprenticeship, indenture, or binding, and such servant by being hired by, or serving as a servant, as aforesaid, to such person, shall not gain or be adjudged to have any settlement in such parish, township, or place, by reason of such apprenticeship or binding, or by reason of such hiring or serving therein; but every such apprentice and servant shall have his and their settlements in such parish, township, or place, as if he and they had not been bound apprentice or apprentices, or had not been an hired servant or servants to such person as aforesaid; any Act or Acts of parliament to the contrary notwithstanding."

An apprentice to a certificate-man, therefore, cannot thereby gain a settlement in the parish to which his master is certificated (1), unless his master himself have gained a settlement there, at or before the time of the binding; because, as the settlement by apprenticeship is gained by the binding and inhabitation, if either take place whilst the master is a certificate-man, the apprentice by the above statute shall not gain a settlement in the parish to which the master is certificated (m). But he may gain a settlement in any other parish, by an inhabitation under the indenture there (n).

So, a person, by hiring and service to a certificate-man, could not gain a settlement in the parish to which his master was certificated (o), unless his master himself had gained a settlement there (p).

(1) R. v. Huggate, 2 B. & A. 582. St. Cuthbert's v. Westbury, Burr. S. C. 470. Romsey v. St. Michael's, Burr. S. C. 640. R. v. Spotland, Burr. S. C. 527. R. v. Hampton, 5 T. R. 266.

(m) R. v. Leeds, 4 B. & Ad. R. v. Hinkley, 4 T. R. 371. R. v. Whixley, 1 T. R. 137. Bowling, Burr. S. C. 177, cont.

248.
See

R. v.
semb.

(n) R. v. Petham, 2 Str. 1147; Burr. S. C. 154. R. v. St. Peter's in Nottingham, Burr. S. C. 391. R. v. Bishopside, Burr. S. C. 381; Say. 231. R. v. St. Peter in Derby, 1 T. R. 218.

(0) R. v. Sowerby, 2 East, 276. (p) R. v. Nacton, 3 B. & Ad. 543.