« ForrigeFortsett »
1806. if such there shall be, who shall be liable to the pay. CheYment of the said costs and expences a proportionable
share thereof according to the number of persons so TURLEY aid Others,
liable. The committee being appointed to try both of
Lawrence, J. . There might be one interest and yet two separate petitions. There may be a return, and one may wish to 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 sliort ground as that of non-age. Suppose the committee holds the one to be frivolous, and the other frivolous must there, because there is one committee and one trial be joint costs ?” .
Lord ELLEN ROROUGI, 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'' petitions.""
Wood then cited Coup. 192, where the word bai. liff in the singular puinber was held to apply to the bailiff's 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.
The Court held that there the plain sense might lead
fo such a construction but here it was otherwise. They I said also that if the plaintill had judgment for the
two separate actions for 131. 2s. he would be barred 1806. in an action to be brought against the saine parties on STRACHES a better certificate, and advised Wood to consider versus
TURLEY N whether he would take a nonsuit in one or all of the and Others. 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 hired for a year ending 31st of March, goes on the 25th of Settlement. March with leave of his master, to a mop or statute for hiring Hiring and of servants, in order to get a place at the end of his service, ani relurning early in th? morning ofthe 261h, the master turns himaway, offerig himless than his wages; the pauper on the next duy summons the master before a mugistrale, who orders the 'master verbally to deduct 28. 02. from his whole wages ; the pauper goes into another service, and is shortly after paid his whole year's wages.
Held that the pauper gains no settlement during his service with • the first master.
TWO justices, by their order,removed John Brazier,
The King Ilannah his wife and their four children by name from the parish of Leigh in the county of Worcester the luthabitants
of LEGU. to the parish of Clifton on Team in the said county. The sessions on appeal quashed the order subject to the opinion of the court of King's Bench on the fola lowing case : The pauper John Brazier being legally settled in the parish of Clifton on Team on 31st day of March, in the year 1795, bired hinself a servant in husbandry for a year to Samuel Jones of the parish of Lulesby, and agreed for 61. 103. for the year's service. The pauper resided at Lulesby in the service of the said Samuel Jones froin thence until the 3th day of March, 1796, upon which day; by per
1H06. mission of his master and for the purpose of seeking The King a new service for the ensuing year went to the mop versus
wat Bromyard, the mop being a meeting for the por, the Inhabitants vf Llion. pose of hiring servants, and Bromyard being six miles
distant from Lulesley. The pauper did not return to his master's house 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 26th, 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. Tos. which the pauper refused to accept. The pauper said he would have 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 27th of March, a suipmons having been taken ont 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 bis toaster 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 Broadway, and upon that day entered upon such service. Aboul a week after the pauper went to bis former master Mr. Jones for his wagės; who paid
öf George III. the full sum of 61. 10s. Mr. Jones some days after- 1906. wards applied for a return of the half crown directed
cu The King
the by the magistrate to be deducted, but the same was versus never returned to Mr. Jones. The sessions being of the Inla
of Lejon 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 the order. The question for the opinion of the court is whether under the circumstances above statéd, 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 in Lultsby, then the òrder of sessions is to be affirmed, but if the 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 be 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 Sudbrooke;t and endeavoured to distinguish them from this case. Here was a biring and service during the year, with a dispensation of the contract. The sessions were much influenced by their opinion of the fraudulent nature of the conduct of the master, in endeavouring to deprive the servant of bis setilment. The master having thought it reasonance that he should 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. I
THE COURT held that the contract was put an end to by the servant upon reference to the magistraté, and that the case of Rex v. King's Pyon was almost in terms with lbis.
LE BLANC, J. "If therë was åný fraud the magistrate must have been a party to it."
Order Of sessions QUASHED..
The King against the Bishop or OXFORD
Simony. The inhabitants of P. having, by endowment and an ancient deed,
the right of appointing a curate who is entitled, besides a salery,
acal and void, under the Stat. 31 Eliz.c. 6. s. 5. The KING
SING RULE to shew cause why a mandamus should not Biskup of Ox- issue to the 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 of Ambrosden, in the said county, and diocese of Oxford. The church was vacated 12 May 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 701. per aboum. The affidavits on the part of the prosecution, slated, tbal from time immemorial there hath been a church or chapel in the township of Piddington, in the parish of Ambrosden in the county of Oxford, and