practice of putting upon the record matter which ought to be applied to the equitable jurisdiction of the court." JUDGMENT for the PLAINTIFF. 1806. SCHOLEY versus PAGE. The KING against the Inhabitants of MERSHAM. Feb. 1st. ment. Stat. 3 Public office a A master of a workhouse appointed in vestry, has not a public office Poor settleor charge under 3 and 4 W, III, c. 11, s. 6, to gain a settlement, and 4 W. III. A public office and charge are the same thing, Such charge or c. 11. s. 5. office must be such as must necessarily be filled in succession, not a charge. Master mere duty, upon a contract, which may be suspended or continued of a workhouse. at pleasure. Semble, the test of an office or charge, is that it imposes a duly for the neglect or breach whereof the party may be indicted. APPEAL to the quarter-sessions for East Kent, The KING versus from an order of two justices, for the removal of the Inhabitants Richard Wraith, his wife and children from Boxley to of MERSHAM. Mersham, both in the same county; whereupon the said court confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this court upon the following case: Previous to the year 1800, the pauper's settlement was at Mersham; sometime in that year, being informed that a master of the work-house in the parish of Borley was wanted, be applied for that appointment, and was desired to send in his proposals, and a certificate of his character to the weekly vestry of the parish; he attended at such vestry, and, after some questions and inquiries, he was desired to retire, that his proposals might be considered. Shortly afterwards he was informed that his proposals were accepted and his character approved of, and he was desired to attend a subsequent vestry to receive his appointment. He attended accordingly, but, there being but a very small attendance of the inhabitants at 1396. versus the Inhabitants that vestry, his appointment was postponed to a vesThe KING try holden on the following Sunday, when he attended, and, there being twelve of the inhabitants present, he of MERSHAM. Was informed by the parish officers that he was appointed master of the workhouse of the parish of Boxley, at a salary of 161. per annum. Nothing was said, either at the time of his appointment, or afterwards, as to the time for which he was to hold his situation; but the pauper conceived he might at any time be dismissed at a quarter's notice. There was no appointment in writing, nor any entry in the parish books. He continued master of the workhouse and resided in the parish of Boxley four years, and during the fifth year was dismissed at a quarter's notice. The duties performed by the pauper were the superintending and managing the poor in the workhouse, teaching the poor children to spin, weaving himself, and carrying on the manufacture. He carried the accounts quarterly to the overseers. The sessions were of opinion that the pauper did not gain a settlement in the parish of Boxley in consequence of the appointment and service above mentioned. TADDY, for the appellants. "Such office as mentioned in the statute must mean either an office at common law or one created by statute. The king cannot create a new office. Offices must either be by law or custom, and offices cannot be changed. If the king grant an office, by the name of an office, with the fees, and it appears that it is new, the grant is void. Most of the ancient offices belonging to a parish have an appointment by the leet, and they hold for the performance of the office; but this arises out of a mere contract. In the King v. the Inhabitants of Ilminster, where a pauper was appointed governor of the * 1 East, 83, 1806. The KING versus workhouse in the parish at an annual salary, and it was stated in the case that it was a public annual office; the court held, that that circumstance precluded all discussion; and Bicham's case* was cited to shew the haitants that it was only material to prove that it was an office of a public nature." Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "What is the test of a public office. Is it not, that the officer may be indicted for negligence or breach of duty." PITCAIRNE, contrà. "The appointment in this case, was by the parish in vestry; for it appears that he was desired to give in his terms to the vestry, and was not appointed, until there was a sufficient number of persons present to authorise the appointment. It was also an appointment at a yearly salary, and as nothing was said at the time as to the duration of the office, it must be taken to be an annual office. What is stated as to the apprehension of the pauper, will make no difference in the legal effect of the contract or appointment. The words of the statute 3 and 4 W. III. c. 11, s. 6, are if any person, who shall come to inhabit in any parish shall for himself execute any public annual office or charge in the said parish during one year, then he shall be adjudged to have a legal settlement.' It is, therefore, not necessary to shew that it is an office; it is sufficient if it be a public charge." Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "What is the differ ence between a public office and a charge? It seems to me, that they are synonymous terms. Having the charge of the workhouse would just as well shew that he was a public officer, by shewing that he has a charge which extends over all the poor. You can' not find any case of a public charge, as distinguished from a public office." of MERSHAM. 1806. The KINO versus the Iubabitants PITCAIRNE. "The 6th section of the statute was an exception from the general law, which required notice of the paupers' coming to live in the parish; and of ManaHam. it was so made an exception, on account of the notoriety; and it has been held, that it is a statute which ought to be construed liberally, being an enabling statute. And it has also been held that it does not extend merely to parish offices: and this is of all others an office rendered most notorious, by the election to it being made by the whole parish in vestry." "The argument Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. GROSE, J. Was absent from indisposition. settlement, it is in consequence of that which is rendered equivalent to notice, by the stat. 3 and 4 W. III. c, 11, s. 6. He must, therefore, make out that which the statute has required, and we cannot construe any thing to be that which in reality it is not, because it appears to be an equivalent for that which the statute intended; and it will not entitle the pauper to a settlement, unless it is an office. The question, therefore, is simply, whether this is an office or not? In the King v. Melhorne, it was held that a school-master of a charity school was not an officer, although his situation was very notorious. As to the word public charge, unless that is confined to an office, it would be going a great way indeed; for suppose a man were to contract annually to keep the parish church in repair, that might be considered a public charge." LE BLANC, J. "This man is not within the sta tute 3 and 4 W. III. c. 11, s. 6, unless we can consider that a person who has any duty to be performed, whether it has any thing to do with an office or not, has a public office or charge. The pauper is a person who executes a duty between the overseers of the pa rish and the public, upon a contract made with them. Now, I consider that only to be an office, which must necessarily be exercised by some one to be appointed to it in succession. But this is only a duty to be performed on a contract. The overseers have properly the care of the poor, and they employ this person to do that duty personally for them. They might have appointed him themselves. They only apply to the vestry, in consequence of its being necessary to have the funds appointed by them for the payment of his salary. But those who employed him might have dispensed with his services, and might have ceased to employ him, had it not been for the terms of their * 1 Wils. 87. Burr. S. C. 244. 1806. The KING versus the Inhabitants of MERSHAM. |