order at any time during his imprisonment; or whether they must make it a part of their sentence to determine which ?" VAUGHAN. "The reason of the thing shews that it ought to be left to his majesty's officers to determine; for he might be fit for one service, and not the other. They will have then an opportunity of judging during the imprisonment, whether he is fit to go to the one service or the other." LE BLANC, J. " And, according to your argument, you must add also, whether he shall go at all." Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. In giving the ultimate opinion of the court; "This is a defective order in not appropriating to which service he shall go, for if they had not power to make this a part of their sentence, then it is bad, because they have done so, and if they had a power to make it a part of their sentence, they have. done it defectively, by leaving it uncertain to which le is to go. As to the other point, it is still clearer. The words are "where any offender against this aet," shall be committed, and the justices at the sessions adjudge “such person" a rogue and vagabond, or incorrigible rogue, they may order such rogue and vagabond to be imprisoned for six months, and such incorrigible rogue for two years. “And during the time of such person's confinement, to be corrected by whipping,' according to his offence, and such person' may be passed mutatis mutandis as aforesaid' and if such person' being a male, is above twelveyears, he may be sent into his majesty's service. Such person' in this clause is necessarily any person within the act.'Any offender against this act', and such person,' therefore, mean what persons but every such person within the act?' The first words as well as the last, shew that the rogue and vagabond is within this clause. The first words were not brought to our attention before." 1804. The KING versus PATTCHETT. 1304. versus PATICHETT. VAUGHAN, Serj. observed, that where any additional The KING punishment is directed against the incorrigible rogue, the statute, in this clause, mentions expressly the incorrigible rogue, and does not use the words "such persons,” but "such incorrigible rogue," thus clearly coupling them together in some respects, and separating them in others, but directing both to be whipped. He suggested that the order might, therefore, be good in part, and bad in part, and so might be sustained. But by the court-No THE ORDER OF SESSIONS MUST BE QUASHED. The KING versus the Inhabitants of PUCKLE CHURCH. THE KING versus the Inhabitants of PUCKLECHURCH.→ 'June 16. Where there is a hiring at weekly wages, and nothing is said as to the term, the hiring will be held weekly, as the wages. In this case there were other circumstances in corroboration of a weekly hiring, particu larly the servant's obtaining an occasional increase of his wages, as the summer or winter came, upon an application by the servant to the master, and without a previous running contract or stipulation for any time. ORDER of removal of Thomas Pritchard, his wife and child, from Pucklechurch in Gloucestershire, to Westerleigh in the same county; upon appeal, the sessions quashed the order. The pauper was settled in Westerleigh, but about ten years ago hired himself to Thomas King of Pucklechurch, for eight weeks ending at Midsummer, at 5s. per week, at which time he hired himself to the same master at 4s. per week till Michaelmas. At Michaelmas he entered into a new agreement, to live with his master for board and lodging and 2s. 6d. per week; but no time was mentioned for the duration of the contract. When summer arrived, he said to his master, "I 1804. versus the Inhabitants CHURCH. must have more now, I believe, master;" his master said, "How much more?" and his wages were increased, and so The KING varied as the summer or winter succeeded. At such times. when the alteration took place, there was no conversation of PUCKLEas to leaving the service, or dissolving the contract. They took place at the beginning of the week. He entered and left his service on the same day of the week, Sunday. There was a general settlement at the time he left his service, and some dispute; he could not remember what it was. The pauper was more than once absent from his service, to see his friends, two or three days at a time, with his master's consent; he served in the whole five years and a quarter, and received money on account at different times, a guinea or more, but there was no complete settlement of wages, till he and his master parted; at the time, he was not paid as much as he thought he was entitled to; but whether on account of absence or not, he did not know. ABBOTT and HALL, cited 2 Const. 197, 198, 200, 204, 205, 222. 5 Term Rep. 447. Rex v. Long Whatton, and 2 East, 425, Rex v. the Inhabitants of Hanbury; and contended that according to the principles deducible from those cases, the hiring of the pauper at Michaelmas, was a general hiring for a year; and that the payment of wages weekly had no reference to the duration of the contract of service, so as to make it a weekly hiring. GIBBS, contrà, was stopped by the court. Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J. "If nothing is said respecting the term of service, the circumstance of weekly wages will be sufficient to determine it to be a weekly hiring; but there, nevertheless, may be soinething more said, which will give it a different construction. In this very case, you cannot say, the first contract was a weekly hiring; it was expressly for eight weeks, but the payment 1804. versus he Inhabitants CHURCH. weekly. He serves for the term, and afterwards he hires The KINO again till Michaelmas; that was a definite term, and therefore the payment weekly cannot have the operation of PUCKLE of restraining the contract in that case to a weekly hiring; then there is a third hiring to live with the master for board and lodging, and 2s. 6d. per week; and in this hiring we have a week only to indicate the term, and the wages being to be paid weekly, in the absence of every thing else in the case, will determine it to be a weekly hiring. The other acts of the parties also shew that such was their understanding of it; they agree at Michaelmas about the future service, and nothing is said, except as to the weekly wages; and as this is the hiring stated on the record, it will be a weekly hiring if nothing more is stated. The King v. Vere was an express hiring for a year, and the master said to the servant, "You have been here a year, and I will pay you for a year." In another case there was a month's notice, which contemplates a terin of more than one week, and so the wages weekly could not affect the hiring. GROSE, J. "This is a hiring for a week. Many circumstances decide this. The servant says, Master I must have more wages.' The master says, How much?" the wages were thereupon increased, so that in summer they were more, and in winter less. It appears from this alone the hiring was for a week, otherwise the wages could not have been varied in the manner stated in the case." LAWRENCE, J. expressed himself surprised that the case should come before the court. LE BLANC, J. concurred. Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "I hope it will be understood, so very plain a principle, as this is, that where nothing is said as to the hiring, and the wages are weekly, it must be considered as a weekly hiring." ORDER OF REMOVAL AFFIRMED. 1804. The KING reisus the Inhabitant of PUCKLE CHURCH. REX versus OSMER.-June 7. An indictment, stated that a writ to arrest one B. W. issuing out THE REX versus OSMER. |