1824. Wednesday, A mistress hired a servant from Shrove Tuesday until old Michaelmas day following, and three weeks before the latter day asked her to "stay again;" to vant replied, . The KING V. The INHABITANTS of MARKET TWO Justices, by their order, removed Hannah Stain, The pauper was hired by, and lived with, Mrs. Worthington, in the appellant parish, from Shrove Tuesday, 1821, until old Michaelmas day following. Three weeks before which the ser- the last mentioned day Mrs. Worthington asked the paushe had no ob- per "to stay again;" to which she replied, that she had jection, if they could agree no objection, if they could agree about wages. They about wages. agreed for 37. 10s., and one shilling earnest was paid. At They agreed for 3l. 10s., the hiring nothing was said as to the time the pauper was to serve. There was no interval between the first and second service. A fortnight before old Michaelmas her mistress said to her, Hannah, I have hired you, but mentioned no time; remember you are hired for fifty-one To this the pauper answered, "Very well." tinue. A fort- The pauper lived with Mrs. Worthington until old Michael and one shil- as to the time the service was to con night before old Michaelmas the mistress said to her," I have time; remem ber you are hired for fifty-one weeks;" weeks." mas day, 1823. She asked to have her week just before Christmas. Mrs. Worthington said, "You shall have three or four days now; I cannot spare you the whole week." hired you, but mentioned no She staid away three successive days and nights then, and had the other four days at different times during the year, returning on each of them to sleep at her mistress's; and her mistress gave her two or three holidays besides. She never was absent without her mistress's permission, and plied, " Very always returned into the service, and at the end of the year received her wages. with her mistress for a year under this agreement. She had three days holidays at Christmas, and four other days at different times afterwards, and at the end of the year received her wages: Held, that this was a yearly hiring and service to confer a settlement. to which the servant re well." The servant lived The question for the opinion of the Court, is, whether the pauper acquired a settlement in the parish of Market Bosworth, by the hiring and service above stated. Reader, Hildyard, and Humfrey, in support of the order of Sessions. The Sessions have done right in confirming the order of removal. It is impossible to imagine a clearer case of hiring and service for a year than this. The subsequent declaration of the mistress, though assented to by the pauper, does not alter the original yearly hiring, and the week's absence then agreed upon and ultimately had, was merely a dispensation of so much service, and not an exception in the contract. Rex v. Sulgrave (a) is an authority to that point, and applies directly to the present case. The conduct of the parties is conclusive, to shew that each understood and intended the original hiring for a year to remain unaltered; for the pauper stays her full year, and receives her full amount of wages when the year expires; and the mistress exercises her right to the service throughout the year, by dictating the periods at which the servant was to be absent, according to her own choice or convenience. Besides, upon the evidence stated in the case, the question before the Sessions was one of fraud, which, as was said by Buller, J., in Rex v. Fillongley (b), " is open to the Sessions in every case as it arises. It is the peculiar jurisdiction of the Justices, and not of this Court, to say, whether the particular case be fraudulent or not." Upon either ground, therefore, the Court will feel themselves bound to confirm this order of removal. 1824. The KING 0. The INHABITANTS G. Marriott and Clinton, contrà, endeavoured to distinguish this case from Rex v. Sulgrave, contending that here the original contract was dissolved, and a new hiring for 51 weeks agreed upon by the parties, whereas in that case (a) 2 T. R. 376. See Rex v. Milwich, Burr. S. C. 433. Macclesfield, 3 T. R. 76. and Rex v. Mursley, 1 T. R. 694. (b) 1 T. R. 458. Rer v. of MARKET BOSWORTH. 1824. The KING 0. The INHABITANTS BOSWORTH. there was only a dispensation of the service for a part of the time originally contracted for. BAYLEY, J. (a)—Whether, upon the facts of a case, of MARKET there has been a dissolution of the contract, or a dispensation of the service, and whether there has or has not been fraud in the transaction, are, generally speaking, questions for the Justices at Sessions to decide; and when they have decided them, the general rule is, that this Court will not interfere. But when the Sessions entertain doubt upon any particular case, and it has been brought before us at considerable expense in consequence, it is competent, and indeed proper, for us to give our opinion upon it. I am of opinion, that the pauper in this case has gained a settlement by hiring and service in the parish of Market Bosworth, because it seems to me, either that there was a dispensation of a week's service, or that the second contract was tainted with fraud. In order to decide whether there has been a dispensation of a portion of the service, it is important to consider whether the service has been rendered incomplete by the act or request of the master, or of the servant. The requisites to confer a settlement by hiring and service, are, a hiring for a year, a complete service for a year, and a service under a yearly hiring. I am of opinion that all these requisites have been complied with here, and that there was a dispensation of one week's service by the pauper's mistress. The first conversation, in which the mistress asked the pauper "to stay again," and the pauper consented to stay, was a general hiring, and therefore, by construction of law, a hiring for a year. The agreement between the parties was then complete, and earnest was paid in ratification of it. But, it is said, that agreement was dissolved or altered by the subsequent conversation. The conduct of parties, however, frequently expresses their intentions more clearly than their words, and the subsequent conduct of these parties from the moment (a) Abbott, C. J. was gone to Guildhall. of the second conversation up to the close of the year, seems to me to prove most clearly that no bonâ fide alteration was made, or was even intended to be made, in the original agreement. Then, if this be a correct conclusion. from the facts stated, Rex v. Sulgrave (a) comes in as an authority expressly in point, and in conformity with that decision we must hold, in point of law, that there has been a settlement gained by this hiring and service. In Easter Term, 1817, there was another case decided, which in principle also bears on this, namely, Rex v. Coggeshall (b). I am therefore clearly of opinion that the Order of Sessions. must be confirmed. HOLROYD, and LITTLEDALE, Js. concurred. 1824. The KING v. The INHABITANTS of MARKET BOSWORTH. Order of Sessions confirmed. (a) 2 T. R. 376. (b) 6 M. & S. not yet in print. The KING v. The INHABITANTS of ST. MARY, KIDWELLY. Wednesday, Where by a parol contract the master agreed to teach the pauper the trade of a shoe maker for twelve months, for which the master was to BY an order of two justices, William Williams, Catharine, his wife, and their four children, were removed from the parish of St. Mary, in the borough of Kidwelly, to the parish of Llandevilog, both in the county of Carmarthen. The Sessions, on appeal, quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following case: The appellants proved that when the pauper was about fourteen years of age, he lived with his father in the parish of St. Ishmael, in the county of Carmarthen, and being desirous of being apprenticed to a shoemaker, his father lodging during agreed with a neighbour, named John Thomas, a shoe- the time; and at the expira receive a guinea, the pauper's father finding him board and tion of the year, the pauper entered into a fresh agreement, to work with his master for twelve months, making shoes at 3d. per pair the first half year, and at 4d. per pair the remaining half year, and at the end of six months he quitted the service altogether: Held, that there was not a connected hiring and service, so as to confer a settlement. 1824. The KING v. The INHABITANTS of ST. MARY. . maker in the same parish, to give him a guniea for teaching his son the trade of a shoemaker for twelve months, the father finding the pauper lodging and every thing else during that time. The pauper served the whole twelve months under that agreement. There was no indenture or writing, but the pauper considered it as an apprenticeship, and his father and master treated and spoke to him as an apprentice during such twelve months, and both told him there was a guinea paid for teaching him the trade. The pauper's father, at the end of the year, came to an agreement with John Thomas, that the pauper should work with him for twelve months, making shoes at three pence per pair the first half year, and at four pence per pair the remaining half year. The pauper worked with John Thomas about six months under that agreement, and then went away and worked at several places, until his marriage, which happened in 1785. He soon afterwards removed to the parish of St. Mary, and in the year 1790, one Owen Roberts, by an indenture of lease under seal, without livery of seisin indorsed, demised a spot of ground in the parish of St. Mary, to the pauper, and his heirs and assigns, for his own, and two other lives, at the yearly rent of 10s. 6d., payable half yearly, on which spot he immediately afterwards built a cottage, in which he lived until the 25th March last. About five years ago, the pauper being indebted to a Mr. Jones, a currier, for leather, he deposited the lease with him as a collateral security for the debt he owed him. In January last, he sold and assigned his interest in the lease to Mr. Jones for 40l., in part liquidation of his demand, and agreed to give up the possession on the 25th March following, on which day he quitted accordingly, and never afterwards claimed any interest in the lease. The pauper had sold his interest and given up the possession of the house before the order in question was made for his removal to Llandevilog. On this evidence the Sessions quashed the order of removal, subject to the opinion of this Court, whether the pauper had gained a settlement by hiring and service |