1806. STRACEEY versus TURIEY if such there shall be, who shall be liable to the payment of the said costs and expences a proportionable share thereof according to the number of persons so and Others, liable. The committee 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. there can only be under the acts, one trial, and they must be tried together." For Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. Suppose there is one petition upon the ground of bribery and another which contains only one concise point upon one short fact, such as that the party who is returned is not of age; should the costs be joint?" 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 short 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 ELLENBOROUGH, 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 Cowp. 192, where the word bailiff in the singular number 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. THE COURT held that there the plain sense might lead to such a construction but here it was otherwise. They said also that if the plaintiff had judgment for the 1806. STRACHEY versus two separate actions for 131. 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 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. TURLEY The KING against the Inhabitants of LEIGH. Service. 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 ef servants, in order to get a place at the end of his service, and returning early in the morning ofthe 26th, the master turns himawag offering himless than his wages; the pauper on the next day summons the master before a mugistrate, who orders the master verbally to deduct 2s. 6d. 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 versus of LEIGH. Hannah his wife and their four children by name from the parish of Leigh in the county of Worcester the Inhabitants 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 following case: The pauper John Brazier being legally settled in the parish 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 Lulesby, and agreed for 61. 10s. for the year's service The pauper resided at Luleshy in the service of the said Samuel Jones from thence until the 25th day of March, 1796, upon which day, by per 106. The KING versus the Inhabitants of Lzion. mission of his master and for the purpose of seeking a new service for the ensuing year went to the mop at Bromyard, the mop being a meeting for the purpose 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 obsérved 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 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 summons having been taken ont by the pauper against his master, they both appeared before a justice 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 Broadway, 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 1806. The KING versus of LEIGH. the full sum of 61. 10s. Mr. Jones some days after- PULLER, in support of the order of sessions, re- case. Here was a hiring 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 his settlement. The master having thought it reasonaie 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.‡ 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 Pyon was almost in terms with this. LE BLANC, J. "If there was any fraud the magistrate must have been a party to it." ORDER OF SESSIONS QUASHED. * Smith's Rep: 51. + Ibid. 55. ↑ Stru. 526. 2 1806. Simony. The KING versus BISHOP of Ox FORD. THE KING against the BISHOP OF OXFORD June 2d. The inhabitants of P. having, by endowment and an ancient deed, RU ULE to shew cause why a mandamus should not |