with the father's family." In this case, the pauper never contracted the relation of household servant with another family; she was to work in the fields, not in the house. She was, therefore, never out of her father's family, to use Lord Kenyon's expression; her wages contributed to his support; she intended to return home, and her father expected she would as soon as the harvest work was done. In Rex v. Roach (a), Ashhurst J. considered the question, whether absence from the father's family amounted to emancipation, to depend upon the intent. He there says, "In some cases, perhaps, it may be difficult to say what shall amount to a severance from the father's family. When a child becomes of age, it is optional in him, either to continue with his parents or not, as he pleases. He is then sui juris and if he leave his father's house and put himself under some other control, this is a kind of public notification that he means to leave his father's family." Now, I think here, that the fact of the pauper having left her father's house, and put herself under the control of another during the harvest, was not, under the circumstances of the case, any indication of an intent to leave her father's family. In Rex v. Sowerby (b), it was found that the son of the certificated person never left his father or mother's house, except for a few weeks in harvest time in one year; and it was there considered, that he was not thereby emancipated. TAUNTON J. Certainty in the administration of every department of the law is of the greatest importance, and in none more so than in sessions law. The (a) 6 T. R. 247. (b) 2 East, 276. yearly 1834. The KING against The Inhabitants of OULTON, 1834. The KING against The Inhabit ants of OULTON. yearly expense of the country is increased greatly by splitting hairs in questions of this description. I cannot distinguish this case from Rex v. Roach (a). That decision, whether wisely come to or not, is binding on us. It certainly is not in contravention of any leading principles of law: if it were, I might think it right to reconsider it. It is true that, in this case, the pauper hired herself at the desire and with the consent of her father; but every parent consents and desires (if his mind be properly constituted) that his children should go to service to obtain an honest livelihood. Here the pauper agreed not merely to do harvest work, but to work for Wilson during his harvest. It is by no means uncommon for farmers to employ their own domestic servants to do the harvest work, and to hire others to do the household work. Whether that was the case here does not appear: but the pauper lived with her master during the whole harvest time, and slept in his house; and she was absent, on the first occasion, three weeks and two days. And as it is expressly found that, on the second occasion, she gave her wages to her father, it may be fairly inferred that, on the first, she kept them for herself. Then, the only difference between Rex v. Roach (a) and this case is, that there the pauper served eight weeks, here only three weeks and two days. In each case, the pauper served under a contract; and as it was held in the former case that the pauper was emancipated by having been absent from his father's family eight weeks, I think we are bound to adhere to that decision, and to hold that the pauper was emancipated, here, by her absence for three weeks. (a) 6 T. R. 247. PATTESON PATTESON J. I cannot distinguish this case from Rex v. Roach. (a) The only difference is, that, in that case, the pauper served eight weeks: here, she served three weeks and two days; but she was bound by her contract, and compellable, to serve her master during that period. It is found, indeed, that she hired herself with the consent and at the desire of her father; but he could not enforce or prevent her so doing, for she was of full age; and that being the case, the onus of shewing that she was not emancipated is thrown on that party who contends that she was not so. As to Rex v. Sowerby (b), the decision there did not turn on the question of the emancipation of the son; he was born after the father had come into the certificated parish, and always resided with him during his lifetime, and, after his death, with his mother; and the question was, whether or not, after that time, he still resided under the certificate, by living with his mother as part of a family of which she was the head; in which case his hired servant was prevented by the statute 12 Anne c. 18. s. 2. from gaining a settlement. Order of sessions confirmed. 1834. The KING against The Inhabit ants of OULTON. 1854. Saturday, Jan. 18th. Appellants against an order of re The KING against The Inhabitants of ON an appeal against an order removing Elizabeth Wylly and her children from the parish of Lutterworth, in the county of Leicester, to the parish of Lubbenham, in the same county, the sessions confirmed the marriage of the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: moval, to es. tablish a birth settlement, proved, 1st, the father and mother at K. in April 1749; and, 2dly, the baptism at K. of their four The respondents proved that the pauper, before her marriage with Alexander Benjamin Wylly, gained a settlement in Lubbenham. The appellants gave the folin May 1751; a lowing evidence: — the marriage of John Brittain and son, J., in May children, viz. a daughter, M., 1753; a daugh- Mary Goode, at Ketton, in the county of Rutland, on the 27th of April 1749; the baptism of Mary their daugh ter, Elizabeth, in January 1755; and ter, S., in De cember, 1756: Held, that the sessions were not bound to infer from this evidence that Elizabeth was born at K. another daughter, at Ketton, on the 26th of May 1751; the baptism of John their son, at Ketton, on the 27th of May 1753; the baptism of Elizabeth their daughter, at Ketton, on the 19th of January 1755; and the baptism of Susannah their daughter, at Ketton, on the 25th of December 1756. They further proved the marriage of Alexander Wylly, a foreigner, who had no settlement, with the said Elizabeth, on the 18th of January 1779; and the birth from that marriage of A. B. Wylly, who afterwards married the pauper. The appellants thereupon submitted that they had shewn a birth settlement of Elizabeth in Ketton, which settlement devolved upon her son, and was by him communicated to the pauper. The respondents relied on Rex v. North Petherton (a). (a) 5 B. & C. 508. Hildyard Hildyard and Sir G. A. Lewin, in support of the order of sessions. The sessions have properly decided that the birth settlement of Elizabeth Brittain was not sufficiently proved. Rex v. North Petherton (a) shews that a register of baptism is not evidence per se of the place of birth of the party baptized. Here, it will be said, there is a series of registers shewing that different members of the family were baptized in the same place (the parish of Ketton), from which it ought to have been inferred that Elizabeth Brittain was born in that parish. But that is not a necessary inference; for the parents may have resided in an extraparochial place contiguous to Ketton, and have brought their children to that parish for baptism. It was for the sessions, at any rate, to draw the conclusion from the evidence; they were not bound to find that Elizabeth was born in Ketton. Humfrey and White contrà. This case differs from Rex v. North Petherton (a), as, besides the register of the baptism of Elizabeth Brittain, there were other circumstances connected with it from which the sessions ought to have inferred that she was born in Ketton; viz., the baptism of three other children in that parish. DENMAN C. J. The question at sessions was, whether the birth settlement of Elizabeth Brittain was sufficiently proved. The Court of Quarter Sessions thought that it was not, and they have stated in the case the facts on which they came to that conclusion. We must collect that the question intended to be submitted to us was, (a) 2 B. & C. 508. 1834. The KING against The Inhabit ants of LUBBENHAM. whether |