which a settle two days after Old Michaelmas-day to the Old Michaelmas-day day till old following. The argument that this is a good hiring, because it is Michaelmas-day a hiring from fair-day to fair-day, is unsupported by the facts following, is found by the Sessions; the hiring was neither from Old Michael- not a yearly mas-day to Old Michaelmas-day, nor from fair-day to fair-day. hiring under The cases upon this subject have gone far enough; and it is ment can be necessary to look back to the statute, which requires a hiring for gained. a year. If we allow these constructive hirings to go on, we shall soon have it contended that a servant acquires a settlement who is hired by the keeper of a boarding-school, from the breaking up at Christmas to the breaking up at Christmas, although less than a year should in fact be comprised in the period. The other judges concurring, order of Sessions quashed. -- any time 352. Rex v. Tyrley, T. T. 2 G. 4. 4 B. & A. 624. - Two justices, by their order, removed E. P. and family from A. to T. The Sessions, upon appeal, confirmed the order, subject, &c. P., the pauper, hired himself at 8l. and his washing, without being specified, but which the Sessions found to be a general hiring for a year. The pauper entered into his service the day before New Year's-day, and quitted, with the consent of his master, two days after Christmas-day, the usual time that servants, in that part of the county, go into and leave their places. The pauper received the whole of his wages at the time of his quitting, and stated, that when he left, he considered himself no longer under the control of his master. The Sessions confirmed the order, and found this to be a hiring and service for a year. ABBOTT C. J. As the Sessions have expressly found the fact of a hiring and service for a year, I think we are bound by it. I cannot say that no reasonable person could come to such a conclusion upon the facts stated, although I certainly should not have come to it myself. I should have thought, that, in case, there was neither a dispensation with the service, nor a dissolution of the contract, but that the contract had rived at its termination, and that before a year had expired. But still, as the question was properly for the determination of the Sessions, who have expressly found the fact otherwise, I think their order must be confirmed. Order of Sessions confirmed. this A pauper hav ing hired him self without specifying any time, entered into the service the day before New-year'sday, and quitted two days after Christmas, re ceiving his full wages: that being the usual time that ser vants in that country go into and leave their places. The Court thought part of the that this was a contract which ar- had arrived at its termination before the expiration of a year; but the Sessions having expressly found it to be a hiring and service for a year, the Court considered themselves as bound by that finding. VII. Of restrospective Hiring. you was on a Thursday, and upon the Saturday following a man 353. Coombe v. Westwoodhey, H. T. 5 G. 1. Strange, 143.. A retrospective In 1715, Michaelmas-day happened to be of a Thursday. A man hiring, as when was hired upon the Saturday following, to serve from the said Michaelmas-day Thursday after Michaelmas-day to Michaelmas following. All this was stated for the opinion of the Court. And the first question was, Whether there was a complete hiring for a year? for if the word said be rejected, then there wants a week; but if keep it in and refer it to Michaelmas-day, then by rejecting the words after Michaelmas-day it will stand as a hiring from one Michaelmas to another. And EYRE J. thought it might well be so. Sed cæteri contrà, for it would be to make it nonsense, in contracting to serve for a time past; whereas, if the word said be rejected, the rest is natural enough. The other question was, Cald.101. was hired following," is Whether (admitting the hiring be complete) there was any service for a year in pursuance of it as the statute requires, the contract being made upon the Saturday? - And EYRE J. said it might be intended he was those two days upon trial, and so the service would be sufficient. But the rest held, that such a service would signify nothing, for it is not in pursuance of any hiring; there must first be a hiring, and then a service, and not vice versa a service, and then a hiring. A. 354. Rex v. Westwell, T. T. 3 G. 2. 1 Bar. K. B. 354. was hired to live with B. from six weeks after Michaelmas to the Michaelmas following; and before his time was out he offered to live with B. for another year from that Michaelmas-day, if he would give him 47. a year; but, that proposal not being agreed to, he went away on Michaelmas-day; and three days after the master agreed to give him the money, and then A. immediately entered upon the second service, and lived with B. till the Michaelmas following. THE SESSIONS, upon an appeal from an order of two justices, adjudged A. to have got a good settlement by this service. 11 But THE COURT, on a rule being granted, made it absolute for quashing the order. 355. South Cerney v. Coultsbourn, E. T. 5 G. 2. EDITOR'S MSS. - Two justices removed N. R., from S. C. to C., both in the county of G. The Sessions, on appeal, quashed the order, and stated the following case: In the parish of N. L., in the county of G., two mopps, or meetings, are held in every year for the sole purpose of hiring servants. The first mopp is held on. the Wednesday preceding Michaelmas-day, and the other is held on the Wednesday after Michaelmas-day. The pauper, N. R., was legally settled in the parish of S. C.; but after he had gained such settlement, and about six years before the present order of removal was made, he went into the parish of N. L., to the mopp or meeting held as aforesaid, on the Wednesday next after Michaelmas-day, which said Wednesday in that year happened on the 5th day of October, when and where he was hired by one R. W., for his mother J. W., of C., to serve her until the Michaelmas-day then next ensuing. On the Michaelmas-day next ensuing, the day on which he was thus hired, he desired to be discharged, and Mrs. W. accordingly paid him his wages as for the whole year, and he quitted her service. - STEVENS obtained a rule to show cause, why the order of Sessions should not be quashed; for that the hiring being for a year, according to the custom of the country, it ought to be taken under the custom a good hiring for a year.- PAGE and PROBYN JS. were clearly of opinion, that even if this mode of hiring had appeared upon the face of the order to be according to the custom of the place, yet it was impossible to permit any such custom to prevail, when contrary to the direct and express words of an act of parliament. The statute 3 W. & M. c. 11. § 6. requires a hiring for a year; but in this case there was not a hiring for a year; and whatever inclination the Court might feel to support a good custom, it was impossible to do it, either upon the facts stated in this order, or against the directions of the statute. 356. Rex v. Ilam, M. T. 25 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 304.— R. P., of the parish of I., hearing that the pauper was a likely boy to serve him as his postilion, sent to the pauper's father, to have the hired for a year, a year and 10 the eight weeks, A hiring three days after Michaelmas, to serve in husbandry UNTIL the Michaelmas pauper upon liking. After the pauper had served P. eight weeks liking, and after on liking, P. hired him for a year, to commence from the begin- eight weeks was ning of the said eight weeks. He served P. in the parish of I., expired, he was including the eight weeks, a year and ten days, and no longer. to commence THE COURT, after a second argument, and taking time to con- from the beginsider of this case, which they held to differ from all the former ning of the said cases, said, The whole question was, Whether there was a hiring eight weeks, for a year? It is agreed, that there must be a hiring for a year, and served only and a service for a year, to gain a settlement, and that a retrospect will not do; which latter is the case here; for the lad came upon liking; and at that time there is nothing stated of a hiring until eight weeks after, during which eight weeks both parties were at liberty: and they held this to be no settlement. (a) 357. Rex v. Mursley, E. T. 27 G. 3. 1 T. R. 694. — W. C., the pauper, was born in the parish of R.; and three days after Michaelmas 1782, was hired by J. P., in the parish of M., to serve him in husbandry until the Michaelmas following: he served him the whole of that time, and received the whole of his wages: J. P., at the time of hiring him, told him he should not belong to following, is a the parish of M.-THE SESSIONS stated that they were of retrospective opinion that all such transactions on the part of masters are fraudulent to prevent servants gaining settlements by virtue of their services, and adjudged that the pauper gained a settlement in M. by virtue of such hiring and service, and confirmed the order of justices by which the pauper and his wife were removed from R. to M.- ASHHURST J. This is a very clear case: it is stated as a naked fact, that the pauper was hired three days after Michaelmas. It does not appear to have been a concerted scheme between the parties to prevent the pauper's gaining a settlement; for non constat that they ever saw each other till the actual time of hiring, which was three days after Michaelmas. This, therefore, cannot be taken to be a hiring for a year.-BULLER J. There must be, by some means or other, a hiring for a year, and a service for a year, in order to give the servant a settlement. The question of fraud only arises where in truth there is such a hiring, but the parties endeavour to colour it in order to prevent the pauper's gaining a settlement. In such case the Court may say it is fraudulent. For suppose the master had hired the servant three days after Michaelmas to serve till the Michaelmas following, and (a) In the case of Rex v. Hoddesdon, E. T. 17 G. 3. the pauper four days after Michaelmas-day, went to Hoddesdon to inquire after a place at Mr. Veares, but was told by his sister that she believed she should not keep a maid at all. The pauper on this went back to Cheshunt; but the carrier called on her the day following, and told her that she might come if Mr. Veares and she could agree. She then went back, and staid about three weeks or a month upon liking, without any term being talked of; when her aunt came, and Veares hired her for a whole year, at the wages of 147. to commence from the day she first came to the service. She staid in the service until the day hiring, and a service under it will not gain a settlement. Rex v. Milwich, ante, pl. 306. A conditional quarter of a year, and if the master and ser.. vant liked one another, to continue for a year, is, if service for a year ensues, a good hiring to gain a settle ment. 1 Sess. Cas. p. 211. had agreed with the servant that he should give in three days after the expiration of that time, that would be construed to be a hiring and service for a year. But the master may, if he please, hire a servant for a less time than a year, for the express purpose of preventing his gaining a settlement. GROSE J. If the opinion of the Court of Sessions amount to any thing, it goes the length of saying, that all hirings for less than a year are fraudulent. It must be admitted, that a master may hire a servant for six months only; and the same reason will equally permit him to hire a servant for a year short of three days. VIII. Conditional Hiring. 358. Rex v. Lidney, T. T. 6 & 7 G. 2. EDITOR'S MSS. -Two hiring, as for a justices removed M. B., single woman, from the parish of S. to L. The Sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, and stated the following case: The pauper, M. B., about three years before the order of removal was made, went to S. and there hired herself to one W. W., an inhabitant of the parish, upon the following terms, viz. she agreed to live as a servant with the said W. W. for a quarter of a year, and if he and she liked one another, that then she would continue his servant for the remainder of the year. The wages agreed for were 31. a year. The pauper entered into the service under this hiring, continued with her master one whole S. C. 2 Str. 950. year, and received at the year's end her 3. as the wages for the year. YEATES obtained a rule to show cause why these orders should not be quashed, and contended, on showing cause, on the Burr. Sett. Cas. authority of Rex v. Soleberry, that the statute of 3 W. & M. c. 11. p.1. is to be construed in favour of settlements, because it restrained that right which every person possessed at common law to claim a settlement by virtue of inhabitancy, and he cited to this effect (a) Ante,pl.193. the cases of South Sydenham v. Lamerton (a) and Rex v. Aynhoe. (b) (b) Post,pl.368. The contract in the principal case, though made with caution, evidently includes a year, as appears from the circumstance of the wages. The service under the first quarter may be thought distinguishable from the rest, because for that time the contract was absolute and binding on both parties, and that after its expiration it was in the election of either party to determine the contract; but as neither of the parties determined it, and it, in fact, continued for the year, it must be taken that each of them assented to its continuance, and then that implied assent will have relation back to the time of the first hiring, and form an executed contract of hiring and service for a whole year, which is all that is required by the statute to gain this species of settlement. - STEVENS, on the other side, contended, that this hiring and service did not gain a settlement. But LEE C. J., and PAGE and PROBYN Js. were of opinion that the pauper had, by this hiring and service, gained a good settlement; for although the hiring was originally conditional, yet the condition being performed by the continuance of the relation, the contract shall be taken as if absolute, and as if the condition had never existed: it is clear, that the master and the servant did like one another; it is clear, from the payment of the year's wages, that if this happened the contract was to be for a year; and therefore the service under it gains a settlement. The rule for quashing the orders was accordingly made absolute. 359. Rex v. New Windsor, H. T. 8 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 19.- An agreement The pauper was hired to serve Colonel M., at T., and was to go to go one month into his service a month upon liking, and to have 51. a year wages; upon liking, at but was to go away on a month's wages or a month's warning, to 5. a year, with be at any time paid or given on either side by the said master or liberty to leave the service on a servant. She continued in her service near two years without month's wages, any other hiring, and received her wages quarterly; and at the or a month's time she was hired her settlement was in N. W.-LORD HARD- warning, on WICKE. The question upon the merits of this case is, Whether either side, is a the fact, as stated, be evidence of a hiring for a year? for if it be, good conditional hiring; and a we must adjudge upon the same evidence: I think it is; or else service for a you would overturn most of the settlements in England upon year under it hirings in gentlemen's services. I believe the ordinary way of will gain a hiring is at so much a year, and a month's wages or a month's settlement. warning on either side. I think it is reasonable, that the having 51. a year wages should be understood as meant to fix for how long a time the service was to be, unless sooner determined. And I do not think the limitation of its being to cease upon a month's wages or a month's warning on either side will have any effect; for that is the common method. It is expressly stated, that she continued in her said service near two years; and her coming upon liking for a month does not alter the case at all. As to the limitations of a month's wages or a month's warning, the case of Lidney v. Stroude is a strong case; for that service might have been determined at any time. - PAGE J. I am of the same opinion. I think, the having 57. a year wages shows that it was a hiring for a year: It is defeasible indeed; but so is an absolute and express hiring for a year, wherever there is a power to determine it sooner. PROBYN J. The natural construction is, that it is a hiring for a year at 51. wages: and it is tantamount to saying, that she was hired for a year, at 51. a year wages. The rest is matter which is to go in defeasance of the contract. But notwithstanding those eventual limitations, the service actually subsisted for near two years. They might have avoided the contract; but they have not. - LEE J. was of the same opinion, that upon the face of this special order, it appeared that she was legally settled at T.; for it is stated, that she was hired to Colonel M. at T. Now a general hiring is a hiring for a year. Then it is stated, that she was to have 57. a year wages. The contract depends upon the first hiring. The parties had it indeed in their power to avoid the contract; but they have not done so. The reason of making a hiring for a year requisite, is the credit of the person thought worthy to serve for a year; and here it is as strong; for, after trial, the master let the service go on for near two years. Therefore the words and intention of the act are complied with in this case. 360. Rex v. Atherton, H. T. 16 G. 2. Burr. S. C.-R. H., being unmarried, and not having any child or children, and being legally settled in A., was, in the year 1729, hired by T. B., an inhabitant of, and legally settled in B., for one year, at 41. wages, payable quarterly. And it was agreed between the said B. and H., at the time of the said hiring, "that either the said master or "servant should be loose from or at liberty to determine the said " contract or hiring at the end of any quarter of the said "either of them giving a month's notice to the other." year; But it Ante, pl. 358. and see Rex.v. Birdbrooke, ante, pl. 320. A hiring for a year, at 41. a year, payable liberty on eitner quarterly, with side to determine the contract at the end of any quarter, on a month's notice, is, if no |