« ForrigeFortsett »
130(5. if sucli lliere shall be, who shall ba liable to the pay„ s>-i ticniv ment of the said costs and expences a proportionable Ji".1"" share thereof according to the number of persons so ■ajd Oiiiei:, liable. The corarrrittee being appointed to try both of these petitions together they became one joint and consolidated petition; and all the parties who signed the petition became jointly liable to the costs. For there can only be tinder the acts, one trial, and they must be tried together."
Lord ELLF.NEOEoufiH, C. J. "Suppose there is one petition upon the ground of bribery and another jyhich contains only oue concise point upon one short fact, such as that the party who is returned is not ot age ; should the costs be jointr"
Lawrence, J. "There might be one interest and yet two separate petitions. There may be a return, and one may wish ti set it aside on the ground of bribery, which may lead to very great length of evidence, and great expense, and the other takes some such short ground as thatof non-a&e. Suppose the committee holds the one to be frivolous, and the other frivolons hlnst there, because there is one committee and one trial be joint costs?"
Lord Ellen nortovcn, C. J." I do not see how you can get over the obstacle of the words being all in the singular number' petition,' and not ' petition1;.'
Wood then cited.Corp. IOC where the word bailiff in the singular pumber was held to apply to the bailiffs being the returning officers. And he mentioned the practice of the House of Commons on petitions to be in favour of the plaintiff's claim.
Thecourt held that there the plain sense might lead to such a construction but here it was otherwise. l'ey 1 said also that if the. plaintiff had judgment for the two srparate actions for 13l. 2s. he would be barred in an action to be brought against the same parties on a better certificate, and advised Wood to consider whether he would take a nonsuit in one or all of the actions. They said they must put the best construction they could upon the acts without regard to the practice of the House of Commons.
A Nonsuit entered in all the Actions.
The King against the Inhabitants of Leigh.—
A pauper hi're/tfor a year ending 31 it (/March, goes on the 25/A of Settlement. .March with leave of his master, to a mop or statute for hiring Hiring and
* Service. tf servants, in order to gel a place at the end of his service, and
returning early in th'morning of the 16th, the master turns himarcoj^ efft i i 'g himless than his wages; lite pauper on the next day summons the master before a magistrate, who orders the master verbally to deduct 2s. Sd. from his whole wages; the pauper goes into another service, and is shortly after paid his whole year's wages, //eld that the pauper gains no settlement during his service uith the first master.
rJ^WO justices, by their order,removed John Brazier, K
Hannah his wife and their four children by name versus from the parish of Leigh in the county of Worcester tbe Jnh«biunt» to the parish of Clifton Oh Team in the said county. The sessions on appeal quashed the order subject to tlie opinion of the court of King's Bench on the following case: The pauper John Brazier being legallysettled in the pariah of Clifton on Team on 31st day* of March, in the year 1795, hired himself a servant in husbandry for a year to Samuel Jones of the parish of ]jt<le*bu, and agreed'for 61. 10s. for the year's service. The pauper resided at l.uleshy in the service of the said Samuel Jonc* from thence until the JSJlh day of March, 17l>t>j upon which day, by per
Mission of his master and for the purpose of seeking TbeK«*» * new service for the ensuing year went to the mop » at Bromyard, the mop being a meeting for the por
tte Inhabits - ," .' 1 _* ,°. . \,
ylLxrai, pose of hiring servants, and Bromyard being six miles tlisbant from Lulcsley. The pauper did not return to his master'shmise till three o'clock on the morning of the 26th of March, when he came home with some ribbands in his hat which he had purchased. In the course of the morning of the 2Gtli, his master came to him and observed he supposed masters were scarce at the mop, and that he had enlisted for a soldier, and .told the pauper he should stop no longer in his service^ The pauper told his master he had not enlisted which was the fact, and that he wished to stop his year out; but the master said he would not keep the pauper any longer in his service, and the pauper should stop no longer, and at the same time, offered the pauper his wages for the time he had served, something less than 61. 10s. which the pauper refused to accept. The pauper said he would nave accepted the full year's wages if tendered to him by his master, but that he had rather have staid out his year. The pauper left his master's house immediately in consequence of what had passed and never returned to it. On the next day, the 2?th of March, a summons having been taken out by the pauper against his master, they both appeared before a jaslice of the peace for the said county, upon which occasion the pauper applied to the magistrate to direct his master either to receive him into his service for the remainder of the year, or to pay him his whole year's wages, and the magistrate verbally directed half a crown to be deducted from the whole year's wages and retained by the master. The pauper on the same 27th of March hired himself as a servant to Mr. Smith of Broadiray, and upon that day entered upon such service. About a week after the pauper went to his former master Mr. Jones for his wages; who paid
the full sum of 61. 10s. Mr. Jones some days after- tio4. wards applied for a return of the half crown directed ThelTis* fey the magistrate to be deducted, but the SciITl€ Wftd .versus never returned to Mr. Jones. The sessions being 0f the Iniisbmnu Opinion that the pauper Under the circumstances' above stated had gained a settlement in Lulesby by hiring and service for a year with Samuel Jones, quashed ihe order. The question for the opinion of the court is whether under the circumstances above stated, the pauper served a year with Samuel Jones so as to gain a settlement in Lulesby; if the court is of opinion that the pauper gained a settlement iri Lultsby, then the Order ot sessions is to be affirmed, but if th'e court is of opinion that the pauper did not gain a settlement in Lulesby, then the order of sessions to be quashed, and the original order to he affirmed.
. Puller, in support of the order of sessions, re-, "ferred to the cases of the King v. the Inhabitants of King's Pyon,* the King v. the Inhabitants of Sttdbiooke,-\- and endeavoured to distinguish them from tins' case. Here was a hiring and service during the yeftr, with a dispensation of the contract. The sessions were , much influenced by their opinion of the fraudulent nature of the conduct of the mast It, in endeavouring to deprive the servant of his settlement. The master having thought it reasonable that he should1 go to the mop, could not on the next day retract, and turn him away on that account. He cited also the case of Eastland v. West Horsley.%
The Court held that the contract was* put an end to by the servant upon reference to the magistrate, and that the case of Rex v. King's Pyori was almost iri terms with this.
Lb Blanc, J. ". If there was any fraud the magistrate must have been a party to it."
Order Of Sessions Quashed. ,
• Smith's Rtp. 51. t Jbid> 55. J Stra. 526, fcor. XXJLV1I. N. I. 4 D
The King against the Bisuor or Oxfokd —■
The inhabitant! of P. having, by endowment and an ancient dee<ft the right of appointing a[curate who is entitled, betides a salary, io the receipt of- vicarial tythes, an inclosure act is passed, reciting that it is mailer of doubt whether the curate is entitled to small tithes or to a modus in lieu thereof, which question it left unsettled by the act ; the inhabitants fair years afterwards present a curate, with whom they enter into an agreement signed by him and the inhabitants slating his appointment, and that he is entitled to the "payment of 40/. St. id. annually, payable out 6ftht lands and hereditaments at P. in right of the said curacy, together with surplicefees, and all other profits,, privileges, and appurtenances to the same belonging and of right payable. The inhabitants considering that sum not sufficient, voluntarily agreed to pay a further annual sum of 29/. Ms. lOrf.; with a provisoc that it shall not in any respect alter the money payment of.iOl. 8s. 2rf. wherewith the said funds are, and hare been immemorially charged in right of the said church. Held that this agreement gives a benefit io the inhabitants, who make the prescntalio:;,inasmuch as it bars the right of the curate to his tythes, and affords evidence in future of a modus, and is therefore simoni
. acal and void, under the Stat. 31 Elk., c. 6. s. 5.
U LE to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue to die Bishop of Oxford to grant a licence to Isaac Knipe, clerk, to officiate as chaplain or curate for. the chapel or church of Piddington in the parish ot" Ambrosden, in the said county, and diocese of Oxford. The church was vacated 12 M/iy 1801, by the death of the late chaplain or curate, J. Cockerill, clerk; upon whose death it was intended with the consent of the bishop to increase the salary of the curate to be advanced from 401. to 70l. per anuum. The affidavits on the part of the prosecution, slated, that from time immemorial there hath been a church or, fihapel in the township of Piddington, in the parish of Ambrosden in the county of Oxford, and