but there are circumstances in this case which repel that presumption, independent of the apprehension of the pauper; for the appointment was determined at a quarter's notice, without objection. Therefore, as far as we can collect the intended duration of the employment from the acts of the parties, it appears that the parish might put an end to it within the year if they thought proper. Upon the whole, therefore, it neither appears to have been an office, nor a public office, nor a public annual office within the statute; and it is immaterial which part of the definition fails in its application to this case.-LAWRENCE J. This pauper can only have gained a settlement in B. by doing that which the statute of King William points out as equivalent to notice to the parish. The statute specifies a particular act to be done, and no equivalent for that act will satisfy it; but the words of the statute must be pursued, and no notoriety of employment in the parish will confer a settlement, unless it be by executing a public annual office or charge in the parish. This is clearly no office, but only an employment arising out of a contract; between which and an office there is a great distinction; as appears from 2 Sid. 142. and Rex v. Milbourne. (a) Then it is (a) Ante,pl. 239. said that this is a public charge; but I know not how we can where it was distinguish that from a public office in this respect, It would be holden that a going a great way to say that every contract with the parishioners schoolmaster for any purpose concerning the parish was a public charge; for that gained no settlewould extend to contracts with carpenters and masons for keeping ing his employthe church in repair, and the like, which can never be considered to ment, which was be within the meaning of the act. But the word charge, coupled no office. as it is in the act with office must be taken to mean something of the same kind, though it may not commonly be known under the name of an office. LE BLANC J. If this were to be deemed a public annual office or charge within the act, it would extend to every case where a person had a duty to perform, which from its nature must be known to the parish in general. But there is a difference between an employment created by the parties themselves, which they may put an end to whenever they please, and that which exists or is created by law. Now this man was in the former situation. It was in the option of the overseers and parishioners to have such a person in such an employment or not; and they could put an end to the employment altogether whenever they pleased. It was created by themselves, and depended upon their contract. I cannot, therefore, call this an office or charge within the meaning of the act of parliament. Both orders confirmed. 250. Rex v. Holy Cross Westgate, E. T. 2 G. 4. 4 B. & A. 619. -Two justices by their order removed the pauper, E. B., from H. C. W., in C., to H. C. W., in Kent. The Sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject, &c. The city of Canterbury is divided into six wards, and two of the twelve aldermen of the city are appointed for each ward, a court-leet is held annually by the two aldermen, at which a constable and borsholder for the ward are chosen. In the month of October 1817, and for some time previously, the pauper resided and carried on business in the parish of St. M. N. C., which is in the ward of N., that ward taining the parishes of St. M. N. and St. A. On the 21st October 1817, the annual court-leet was held for the ward of N., at which con ment by execut Where a pauper was legally sworn in as a borsholder at a after executing the office for a few days, he was afterwards irregularly, by two magistrates, executing his discharged from office, and court-leet, and another person appointed; but he acquiesced in this, and did not, in fact, afterwards exe ment. the pauper was duly chosen borsholder of the ward for the year ensuing, and upon being sent for to take upon himself the office, he attended at the court, and was regularly sworn in, the staff of office was also delivered to him by the former borsholder. A day or two afterwards he happened to be at the cute the office: City Arms public house, within his ward, when a dispute arose Held, that this between some persons, which was likely to create a disturbance, was not execut- and he was desired to preserve the peace; in consequence of ing an annual which, he fetched his staff, and put an end to the dispute, but office within the parish so as to he did not do any other act as borsholder than that. After confer a settle- he had been sworn in a few days, he was desired to attend the monthly meeting of the magistrates, and he attended with his staff; he was called into the council-chamber, and informed by the then mayor, that as it was a question to what parish he belonged, he must leave his staff there for the present, and that he should know further about it in a few weeks; he left his staff accordingly, and not having heard any thing more, he did not act, nor was he called upon afterwards to act as borsholder. The steward of the leet notified the pauper to the magistrates, as the sworn borsholder for the ward of N., and he appeared so in the list of the peace officers, entered in their record-book. The succeeding court-leet for the ward of N. was holden on the 20th October 1818, and the pauper resided during the whole of the year in the parish of St. M. N. The duties that were required to be performed by the borsholder of the ward of N., during the remainder of the year, were performed by another person, who resided part of that time within the ward, and part in the borough of S., adjoining to the ward, but not within the jurisdiction of the city of C., but that other person was not chosen or sworn in as borsholder of the ward, nor did he attend the Sessions in that character, nor was his name enrolled in the list of peace-officers. ABBOTT C. J. At the time of the passing 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 6. it was possible for any individual to gain a settlement by a residence for 40 days in the parish. The object of that act was, to add to this the necessity of delivering to the parish officers a notice in writing, which they were required to read in the church and to register, in order that there might be public notice to all the inhabitants, that they might, in case the individual was likely to become chargeable, procure his removal from the parish. But that act contemplated two cases, in which no notice in writing was to be given, viz. the serving an annual office and the payment of parish rates. Its object was obviously notoriety. Now that is only attained by the actual execution of the office, and not by the appointment to it. Although, therefore, it does appear that the pauper in this case was irregularly discharged from his office, and another person irregularly appointed to succeed him, yet as he did forbear to do the duties of it, I think he cannot within the statute be considered as having executed a public annual office in the parish, and that he did not thereby gain a settlement. The judgment of the Sessions was therefore right. Order of Sessions confirmed. Where eight parishes were incorporated and had a com mon workhouse -- -- 251. Rex v. Hambledon, T. T. 6 G. 4. 4 B. & C. 459. Upon an appeal against an order of two magistrates for the removal of Birdseye from Witney to Hambledon, the Sessions confirmed the order, subject, &c. In the year 1786, the parishes of Brumley, parishes go under that Held, that no one parish singly had power to appoint a governor of its poor, and that the pauper did not by serving under that appointment gain a settlement. Semble, that if he had been Chidding fold, Dunsfold, and Hambledon, were incorporated under under the the provisions of the act 22 G. 3. c. 83. The parishes of Haselmere, 22 G. 8. c. 83., Shalford, St. Martha, Hascomb and Elstead, afterwards took the and a person benefit of the same provision, and all the parishes before mentioned was appointed became incorporated and united parishes, under and for the pur- by one of those poses of the act. About the year 1787, a very large house of in- vernor of the dustry was erected, by contribution of all the said parishes, upon poor of that the waste of the manor, in the parish of H., as the most convenient parish for one situation for the purposes of the incorporation. To this house year, and served paupers from all the united parishes were sent by these parishes for three years respectively, as occasion required, and were maintained separately appointment, at the expence of the respective parishes to which the paupers residing in the severally belonged. For the management of this general house of workhouse: industry, and the employment of all the classes of paupers therein, a governor was, from time to time, appointed under the powers of the act. In the year 1820, B., who had gained a settlement at Witney in Oxfordshire before the date of the said act, was appointed governor of the house of industry by an order in the following form: "Surrey Sessions. We, two of his majesty's jus"tices of the peace for the county of S., acting for the hundred "of Godalming, in the said county, do hereby appoint B., of H., to "execute the office of governor of the poor for the parish of H., "within the said hundred, for one year, to be computed from the "week of Easter now last past, to which he has been recom"mended at a public meeting, holden the 29th day of March last, "pursuant to the directions of the act passed in the 22 G. 3., "the better relief and employment of the poor. Given under our "hands and seals this 6th day of April 1822, G. W. O., J. M." Under this appointment he served in the said office of governor for three years in succession, upon the same terms, and during that time resided in the parish of H. The questions for the consideration of the Court are, Whether B. was duly appointed to a public annual office, according to the provisions of the statute; and whether, by his service in such office in the parish of H., he gained a settlement there?-BAYLEY J. The appointment for one parish was clearly insufficient; and, on the other point also, it appears to me, that no settlement was gained in H. It was decided in Rex v. Mersham (a), that the master of a workhouse is not a public officer, unless he be made so by act of parliament; and, therefore, before the 22 G. 3. c. 83. no settlement could have been gained by service under such an appointment. That statute calls it an office, but the 39th section says, that all persons in the workhouse are to be in the same situation with respect to settlements as if the act had not been passed. For both these reasons, there. fore, it appears to me, that the order of Sessions must be quashed. -HOLROYD and LITTLEDALE Js. concurred.-Order of Sessions quashed. III. Of the Time and Place of serving it. for 252. Fittleworth v. Pulborough, M. T. 18 G. 2. MSS. - W. O., the pauper, came with a certificate from Pulborough in 1736, to the parish of Fittleworth: In October 1743, he was chosen at a court-leet of the Bishop of Chichester for the manor of A., (within which manor F. lies,) tithing-man for the tithing of Cold Waltham appointed by all have gained a 22 G. 3. c. 83., ever." (a) Ante,pl.249. The office must be executed for the space of a year, and, there fore, if a tithingman become chargeable when he has only served five months, it is not such a service as will gain him a settlement. S. C. Burr. Sett. Cases, 288. 1 Wils. 81. Cald. 57.107. 253. 289. Rex v. Bow, post. pl. 255. in the said county; which tithing does not extend through all the parish of F., but comprehends that part of it wherein the pauper resided. He continued to execute his office till the 30th of March 1744; but on the 27th day of that month he became chargeable to the parish, and an order of removal was made and executed on the 30th of March 1744. -LEE C. J. The question is, Whether a person coming into a parish, under a certificate, who is made a tithing-man, and exercises his office in part only of the parish, and for half a year only, gains a settlement? To this three objections have been made. 1st. That the order of removal is bad, because, at the time when he was removed, he was in the execution of a public office, from whence they had no power to remove him, and it has been compared to the case of a servant, whom the justices cannot remove but to this they have not cited any authority; and if a servant should become chargeable to a parish, I think he may be removed. This act of the 8 & 9 W. 3. describes the time when a certificate-man shall be removed, that is, when he becomes chargeable, without any limitation: so that the justices by this act had certainly a power to remove the pauper. The second objection is, that this office did not extend to the whole parish: but it is stated in the order, that he exercised it in the parish; which is complying with the very words of the act of parliament, which says, that he shall execute it in such, and not through such parish. As to the third objection, which is the chief, I do not know that any case has been determined as to that purpose. That (a) Ante,pl.235. of Garsington (a) was never determined, and, besides, differs essentially from the present case, as Sir John Strange has shown. The 3 & 4 W. & M. differs in words from this act, yet it would be odd to place him on a different footing from other paupers, who are to gain settlements by the exercises of annual offices, and that is for and during a year; which must be the construction of this act, otherwise the bare placing a certificate-man in office would gain him a settlement immediately. As to the case of Mr. Lloyd about the taking of a tenement, there are no words about his living a year, and it is the credit he gets by the taking that fixes him in the parish; but, in the present case, he gains it by the execution of the office; and though the words of the 3 & 4 W. & M. have no relation by words to this act, yet, I should think, it ought to have Burr. S. C. 258. the same construction. -WRIGHT and DENNISON JS. of the same opinion. Serving the years, at differ than half 253. Cold Ashton v. Woodchester, H. T. 31 G. 2. 1 Burr. S. C. office of tithing- 444.. There is a custom in the hundred of P., in which the man for two half parish of C. A. lies, for the occupiers of small tenements within ent times, where the hundred to serve the office of tithing-man for half a year the custom was only at a time. D. H., above 25 years ago, served the office of to serve no more tithing-man for the parish of C. A. for half a year only, and about a year, five years ago served the same office for the same parish for another half year only. It was objected, on the one side, that this office was not an annual one. On the other, it was contended, that he had executed a public office for one whole year, for that the two halves would, under the custom of the parish, amount to a whole year, especially as the office of tithing-man was annual in In the case of Burlescomb v. Samford Peverell (b), the office of tithing-man was adjudged to be an annual office within the parish, within the meaning of the 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11. s. 6.; (b) Stra. 544. its nature. and the electing him twice into the office shows their approbation of him the stronger, as a fit and proper person to execute such an office.- LORD MANSFIELD: By this custom, as here stated, it is not an annual office. rishes, the sexton settlement in church lies within that 254. Rex v. Liverpool, H. T. 29 G. 3. 3 T. R. 118.-S. Little- If a churchyard more was originally settled in Stourton, and about 16 years ago lie in two pacame to reside in Liverpool; and while he resided there, he was elected sexton by the proprietors of the seats in the church or chapel of St. J., at a vestry there held in the presence of the churchwardens, being recommended by the then minister to that office and executed that office six years, lodging all the while in the parish of L. The boundary between W. and L. is in the chapel-yard of St. J.: the church and part of the church-yard stands in the parish of W., and the other part of the church-yard is in the parish of L.; but not any corpse has ever been buried in that part of the church-yard which lies in the parish of L. whilst the pauper executed the office, though corpses have been buried there since. The inhabitants of L., seat-holders, and others, constantly attend the church of St. J., in proportion of fifty to one of any other parish or place.-LORD KENYON C. J. The church-yard lies in two parishes, and the sexton gained a settlement in that in which he resided. parish. holden 16th Nov. 1793, was appointed to an annual office " for a year, or until he should be discharged," and who executed the office until the ad journment of another courtNov. 1793, did not thereby gair a settlement. leet holden 1st 255. Rex v. Bow, H. T. 40 G. 3. 8 T. R. 445. The pauper A, who, at an was settled in B. by apprenticeship. At a Michaelmas court- adjournment of leet holden by adjournment for the manor and borough of a court-leet Chumleigh on the 16th of November 1792, the pauper was appointed to the office of ale-taster of the borough and duly sworn, according to the custom of the manor, to execute the said office for one year thence next ensuing, or until he should be lawfully discharged from the same. He accordingly entered upon and executed such office until the 1st of November 1793, when at a similar court holden by adjournment for the said borough a new officer was appointed in his stead, and sworn in the same manner. The tithing-man, constables, and other officers were appointed at such court in a similar manner. No business is transacted at the original courts, but all officers are appointed at some adjournment thereof. There is only one original court-leet in the year for the said manor and borough, and that at some day within the month after Michaelmas, according to the convenience of the steward. -LORD KENYON C. J. The case of N. is at least a case of doubtful authority, and perhaps it would have been better if we had never heard of what is called an equitable construction of the statutes relating to settlements. It would have been better in all cases to have adhered to the plain words of the statutes. But this is an attempt to carry the point farther than it was carried in Rex v. Newstead (a): This is not an appointment for a year from (a) See this one moveable feast to another, but from one court until it should case, post, please the steward to hold another. The words of the statute on which this question arises are express; and the case of Rex v. Fittleworth (b), which has been cited, shows that they have been construed according to their plain and obvious meaning. - PER CURIAM: Order of Sessions confirmed. pl. 343. (b) Ante,pl.252. 256. Rex v. Amlwch, M. T. 6 G. 4. 4 B. & C. 757. Upon an An order of appeal by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the removal was parish of L. against an order of two justices for the removal of directed to the |