Manchester. Canterbury, but resident within the township of Manchester, and Rex v. Inh. of pregnant with a child likely to be born a bastard, was placed, by the officers of the town of Manchester, in the above-mentioned room in the workhouse, and was there delivered of the pauper, James, who was born a bastard. The question for the opinion of the court of K. B. was, whether the above-mentioned room is an hospital, or place within the meaning of the act of parliament referred to, and whether, by force of that act, the settlement of James Crocker is in the parish of St. Andrew's, or whether it is in the township of Manchester, — After argument, ABBOTT C. J. It seems to me, that in this case we cannot consider this as an hospital or place within the act. By the tenth section, the person having the management of it is directed, before the admission of any pregnant woman into such hospital, to take her before a justice, to be examined whether she be married or single; and other duties are cast upon them for that purpose. By the fourth section, an inscription is to be placed over the door or public entrance of every such hospital, stating, that it is licensed for the public reception of pregnant women; and the places spoken of in the third section are those used for the public reception of pregnant women, and supported by voluntary contribution. In the present case, it is only a room set apart for this purpose in the workhouse, the expenses of which are defrayed out of the poor's rate. I think, therefore, that this cannot be said to be used for the public reception of pregnant women, nor supported by charitable contribution. The township, therefore, is not protected by the fifth section; and the sessions have come to a right conclusion. Order of sessions confirmed. Settlement-Emancipation. [See 4 Burn, 223. And after Rex v. Walpole St. Peter's, add the following Case:] Removal from A pauper being of age, and residing with his father, was drawn as a mi vice, he several Rex v. Hardwick, M. 2 Geo. 4. 5 B. & A. 176. Stanton Harcourt in Oxfordshire, to Hardwick, in the same eighteen years county. Order confirmed at the sessions, subject, &c. Case: The pauper was born in the parish of Hardwick, and resided there as a part of the family of his father, who was a settled inhabitant of that parish. In the year 1807, when the pauper was 18 years litia man, and of age, he was drawn for the Oxfordshire militia, and served there- served for five in for five years as a ballotted man; the regiment, during the years as a balwhole of that period, being embodied and in actual service. He lotted man. joined the regiment in 1808, and in the year 1809, having obtain- During his sered a furlough for three weeks, he returned to the house of his fa- times, when on ther, who was still residing at Hardwick, and lived with him for furlough, and, about a fortnight. In the year 1811, the pauper obtained a se- finally, after his cond furlough for a fortnight, and went again to his father's, who discharge from had removed to, and was then residing in the parish of Stanton the militia, reHarcourt, where he remained for about twelve days. The pauper father's house: was discharged from the militia in the year 1813, when he return- Held, that by ed to his father in Stanton Harcourt, who gave him lodgings in his so remaining his house till his marriage. After the pauper's return from the separated from militia, and before his marriage, his father gained a settlement in his father's faStanton Harcourt.-After argument, ABBOTT C. J. The rule of mily after law is, that every new settlement acquired by the parent is comSupp. G G turned to his twenty-one, he was emancipat ed, although the original separ ation was not voluntary on his part. When pauper, at the time of hiring himself, had a daughter of the age of eighteen, who from the age of four had lived with her grandfather, and had been maintain ed by him until his death, and afterwards by her grandmother, which continued until she attained twenty-one, municated to the children so long as they remain members of his family; and the question in this case is, whether at the time when the father gained his settlement in Stanton Harcourt, this pauper remained a member of his family. Now, during the minority of the child, he will remain almost under any circumstances unemancipated; but where the new settlement is acquired by the parent after the child has attained 21, it will not be communicated unless in fact the child continues part of the family. Where, therefore, at that period he is absent, employed in gaining a livelihood for himself, or serving, as in this case, in the militia, I think he no longer remains a member of the family. In the present case, I think that the sessions have come to a right conclusion, in deciding that the last legal settlement of the pauper was at Hardwick. -BAYLEY J. If a child be separated from his father's family, and does not return till after 21, he ceases to be a member of that family, and consequently his settlement will not, after 21, shift with that of his father. I think, therefore, that the sessions are right, and that this case is hardly distinguishable from Rex v. Walpole St. Peter's. (Burr. S. C. 638. 4 Burn, 222.)—HOLROYD J. The distinction between a compulsory and a voluntary separation seems to me to be immaterial. The case must follow the same rule as Rex v. Walpole St. Peter's. Order of sessions confirmed. See 4 Burn, 233. Rex v. Inhab. of Uckfield, T. 56 G. 3. 5 M. & S. 214. Removal from Hurstperpoint to Uckfield, in Sussex. Order_confirmed at the sessions, subject, &c. Case: The pauper, James Marshall, being legally settled in the parish of Uckfield, on the 10th of April, 1802, hired himself for a year to one Jeffrey, then residing in the parish of Tonbridge, in the county of Kent, and continued in the service of Jeffrey in that parish for the whole year. Marshall was a widower at the time of his hiring himself to Jeffrey, and had one daughter, Frances, 18 years of age, who had been separated from him at the age of four years, and had lived with her grandfather, until his death in 1801, during which time she was entirely supported by the grandfather, the pauper contributing nothing for her maintenance. The gran father by his will devised granfather the residue of his estate (which amounted to 1600.) to his executors in trust, to place the same out upon security, and pay the interest to his wife for life for her own use; and he directed that his wife should, during her life, thereout educate and maintain Elizabeth and Frances, the children of his late daughter Elizabeth Marshall, and after the decease of his wife he gave the said residue equally to be divided between the said Elizabeth and Frances; but in case his wife should die before they attained 21, the interest to be applied to their maintenance and education during their minority, and upon their attaining 21 respectively, the principal to be paid to them accordingly; and if either of them should die after her decease under age and without leaving issue, her share to go to the surto the daughter: Held, that the vivor; but if either should die under age, leaving issue, her share daughter was to be equally divided between such issue, as they attained 21, the not emancipat interest in the mean time to be applied towards their maintenance ed, and conse- and education. After her grandfather's death, Frances continued was not, within to live with her grandmother, and was entirely supported by her stat. 3 & 4 W. & until she had attained 21, and was living with her at the time M.,a person not when the pauper hired himself to Jeffrey, and never returned to the grandfather having by his will directed the grandmother to educate and maintain her out of a fund given to the grandmother for life, and quently pauper her father. The question was, if the pauper gained a settlement having a child in Tonbridge by this hiring and service. After argument, Lord at the time of ELLENBOROUGH C. J. This is a perfectly new head of emancipathe hiring. tion. The question is, if, on account of a testamentary bounty left to this child by her relation, the child shall be deemed to be emancipated from all control of the father, and the father to be discharged from all claims of the child for maintenance, if that should become necessary. If such a provision as this amounts to an emancipation, the consequence will be, that the devolution of an estate to a child, from the mother, for instance, would operate in the same way, and discharge the father from the duty of maintenance. This, then, is quite a new head of emancipation. The cases of emancipation put by Lord KENYON in Rex v. Witton cum Twambrookes, (3 T. R. 355. 4 Burn, 228.) are the child's attaining its full age, or being married, or gaining a settlement for itself, or, as in the case of the soldier contracting a relation inconsistent with the idea of his being in a subordinate situation in his father's family. Not one of these is the case here; it is a case sui generis. If, therefore, it is to be considered as an emancipation, it must be on some reason or principle. Now, the reason why it should be so considered is said to be this, that the provision made for the child secures for her an independence and maintenance, and to the parish a discharge from all probability of burthen on her account. The stat. 3 W. & M. enacts, that if any unmarried person, not having child or children, shall be lawfully hired, &c.; which has been construed to mean, that if he has no child that can be a burden to the parish in consequence of his acquiring a settlement there, he shall be considered as not having a child within the meaning of the statute. But was that the case of this pauper when he hired himself? The property devised was merely in trust for the use and benefit of the grandmother, in the first instance, with a direction to her, certainly amounting in equity to an obligation to maintain the child, and after the grandmother's death to the child. But this trust might have failed; the trustees might have violated it and not paid the interest to the grandmother, or she might have proved unfaithful to her trust, and refused or neglected to maintain the child; in which events, so long at least as they continued, the child must have resorted to her father for maintenance, who was not discharged by any emancipation of the child from the parental obligation of providing for her maintenance. It seems to me, therefore, under these circumstances, that the father was not in the situation of a person not having a child within the meaning of the statute, because he had a child, who would have a right to share with him, if he should be unable to provide one, a maintenance from the parish where he should become settled, and who consequently might be a burthen to the parish. He was a person having a child, who might, in the eventual failure of the funds bequeathed for her support, claim a provision from him, and he again might have claimed to have the control and custody of her at any time. The case has certainly been ingeniously argued; but I think it does not amount to an emancipation either to discharge the rights of the one or the duties of the other.-BAYLEY J. The rule is, that the child's settlement shall shift with that of the father until the child is emancipated. This is a perfectly new case, and different from all the Rex v. Uckfield. other cases of emancipation. A provision is made by the will of the grandfather for the maintenance and education of the child, who is living with her grandmother, apart from her father's family; and the question is, if such a provision can be said to deprive the parent of his right over his child, to resume to himself the care and custody of her, or can relieve him from the duty of maintaining her. If this case amounts to an emancipation, would it not be the same, under the like circumstances, at whatever age the child night be? For the law makes no distinction in respect of the different ages of infants under 21, at which time the parental authority ceases, and the father has no right to reclaim his child. Let us then put the case of an infant of very tender years, for whose maintenance the grandfather should make a provision by his will; could it be contended that such a provision would preclude the father from insisting upon having his child returned to him? I think that could hardly be contended. But, to come nearer to the present case: suppose after the year's service of the father, the child then being of the age of 19, had returned to the roof of her father, the father having then acquired a new settlement by such service, can there be a doubt that the child would have taken that settlement? and yet, if she was onc eemancipated, she could not, because she would be emancipated for ever. If, then, she would have been entitled to the father's subsequent settlement, that shews that the separate provision made for her by her grandfather's will could not operate as an emancipation. I therefore think that as she was not emancipated, but, notwithstanding the separate provision made for her, continued part of her father's family, and capable of deriving from her father any settlement which he might acquire, she was a child who might become chargeable to the parish in consequence of his acquiring a settlement. If so, it follows that the father was not in the situation of a person who is capable of acquiring a settlement by hiring and service; that is, a person not having a child within the meaning of the statute.- HOLROYD J. The maintenance provided for the child by the will was precarious, and the obligation of the father to maintain her still continued. The father's control over the child also continued; and, therefore, there is no ground upon the cases, or upon principle, to hold that the child was emancipated. I therefore think that the father was not in a situation to acquire a settlement by hiring and service. Order confirmed. During the minority of a child, there can be no emanci- he marries, and nently to ex- Rex v. Inhab. of Wilmington, H. 2 & 3 G. 4. 5 B. & A. 525. Removal from Crayford to Wilmington, in Kent. The sessions confirmed the order, subject, &c. Case:-The pauper, John Moore, never did any act by which he acquired a settlement in his own right. In the year 1814, he was removed with his father, Thomas Moore, by an order of two justices, from the parish of Crayford to the parish of Wilmington, as the place of settlement of the pauper's father, which order was appealed against, and upon the hearing of the appeal confirmed. The in the same year, returned with his father into the pauper, parish of Crayford, and was hired by the week to Sir Henry Crewe in that parish, in whose service he continued as a weekly servant for nearly two years. Upon leaving the service of Sir Henry Crewe, he followed the occupation of mole-catching in the parish of Crayford, by which he obtained his own living. He never re settlement of resided with his father's family, nor did his father exercise any con- the acquiring a trol over him. In the latter end of the year 1815, when the pau- his own does per was about 17, his father left Crayford, and went to live first at not properly Poplar in a tenement at 4s. per week, where he continued about constitute an eight months, and in or about the month of February, 1817, went emancipation. to Bow, where he rented a house and orchard at 20%. per annum, and in which he still continues to reside. Whilst the pauper followed the business of mole-catching at Crayford, he used occasionally to visit his father both at Poplar and at Bow, and once slept at the father's house in Poplar, but he did not receive any maintenance or assistance whatsoever from his father. After the father had occupied the house at Bow for rather more than a year, the pauper, who was then about 19 years of age, married his present wife. The question for the opinion of the court was, whether the pauper before his marriage was emancipated by his earning his own livelihood, in the manner before mentioned, in the parish of Crayford. After argument, ABBOTT C. J. It is of importance to lay down a general rule for the guidance of magistrates on this subject of emancipation, and the best which I can suggest is this, that during the minority of a child there can be no emancipation, unless he marries, and so becomes himself the head of a family, or contracts some other relation, so as wholly and permanently to exclude the parental control. I say nothing about his acquiring a settlement of his own, because that does not, as it seems to me, properly fall under this head. There can be, however, no question, that in that case he is only removeable to his own acquired settlement. Here, the pauper was under 21, and had neither married nor contracted any such relation as I have described, at the time when his father acquired the settlement at Bow. He was therefore not emancipated, and the order of sessions is wrong. Order of sessions quashed. See Rex v. Witton cum Twambrookes, 4 Burn, 228. Settlement-Marriage. [See stat. 3 G. 4. c. 75. ante, title "Marriage."] Settlement by Hiring and Service. [See Rex v. Clare, 4 Burn, 308.] Rex v. Inhab. of Bradninch, H. 10 G. 3. Burr. S. C. 662. 2 Bott, 199. 1 Nol. P. L. 334.- Removal from Bradninch to Shobrooke, both in the county of Devon; confirmed by the sessions, subject, &c. Case:-The pauper came to one Samuel Ruddall, in the parish of Crediton, and agreed to live with him by the week, at 2s. 6d. per tweek, and to part at a fortnight's or month's notice. The pauper being asked "how long he intended to live with Mr. Ruddall," replied," he did not know, but as long as they liked." And accordingly, the pauper lived with Mr. Ruddall for eight years, under that agreement; the pauper and master being both at liberty to part from each other on a fortnight's or month's notice. The pauper received his wages of 2s. 6d. per week, sometimes at the and of the week, sometimes at the end of a fortnight, and sometimes longer, as he wanted money. Mr. Mansfield moved to quash the order of sessions, objecting "that here was no hiring for a Contract to part at a fortnight's or month's notice. |