HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0010 and id is 1 raw text is: THE KING V. HARRIS
sistent with his dependence on his father as his enlisting for a soldier and serving the
public. In R. v. Pelham, as it is reported in Bott (a), 130, this very question seems
to have been decided.
Lord Kenyon, Ch.J.-It is extremely clear that, if the pauper had served a year
under a yearly hiring in Collingbourn Kingston, before he went to Buckholt, he could
not thereby have gained a settlement in that parish while the certificate was in force,
on account of the Statute of Will. It is equally clear that, if Buckholt had not been
an extra-parochial place, his service under the hiring stated in the case, would have
discharged him from the protection of the certificate in Collingbourn Kingston: because
then the certificate, which asserted that he was settled in Foxfield, would not have
been true in fact, inasmuch as it would in that case have been superseded by a subse-
quent settlement; but Buckholt not being a parish wherein a settlement could be
gained, the question is, whether by any and what means the certificate as to this
pauper was discharged ? In cases of this kind, where the decisions of this Court are
to guide the judgments of the magistrates, it is of great importance that they should
be consistent. Now I am not able to distinguish this case from the principle laid
down in R. v. Wilton cum Tambrookes. It was there held, that a person under age,
who after being absent from his father's family for a considerable time, returned to it
before (b) he was an adult, or married, and before he had acquired a settlement for
himself, was not emancipated, but was entitled to the benefit of his father's settlement.
So in this case the son returned before he had attained the age of 21, not having gained
any settlement for himself distinct from that of his father, nor having become the head
of a family ; and therefore this case must be governed by that of Witlon cum Tambrookes.
The distinction which has been attempted to be taken between some of the former
cases and the present, that here the son put himself out to service, is not material ;
for till the age of 21, not having done either of the acts above alluded to, he continued
a part of his father's family.
Ashhurst, J. and (e) Grose, J. of the same opinion.
Order of sessions confirmed (d).
[202] THE KING against JAMES HARRIS. Thursday, Feb. 10th, 1791. The
26 Geo. 2, c. 6, s. 1, enacts, that all persons going on board ships coming from
infected places shall obey such orders as the King in Council shall make, without
annexing any particular punishment; the disobedience of such an order is an
indictable offence, and punishable as a misdemeanor at common law.
[Discussed, R. v. Hall [1891], 1 Q. B. 765.]
This was an information by the Attorney-General ; the third count of which stated,
that in July 1782, an order was made by the King in Council, whereby it was ordered
that, if any pilot or other person, should go on board any ship or vessel obliged to
perform quarantine, such pilot or other person should perform quarantine in like
manner as any person coming in such ship or vessel should be obliged to perform the
same; that the order was published in the Gazelle in the same month, and has ever
since been in force; that the defendant, well knowing the premises, but having no
regard to the laws and statutes of this realm, afterwards, on the 8th of June 1788, &c.
with force of arms went on board a certain ship called the Stephen, which was
obliged to perform quarantine, in order to conduct the same into the port of Bristol,
and did not perform quarantine, in like manner as any person coming in the said ship
or vessel was obliged to perform the same ; but that the defendant on the 14th June
1788, with force and arms, unlawfully quitted the said ship by going on board a certain
other ship or vessel in a certain place within His Majesty's dominions, before the
ship ( Stephen ) had fully performed and been discharged from such quarantine: he
(a) But this case is also reported by Sir J. Str. 1147, who argued the case himself ;
and who states the question to have turned solely on the construction of 12 Ann. e. 18,
whether the apprentice of a certificated person, assigned to a second master in another
parish, could gain a settlement by serving in such other parish.
(b) See R. v. The Inhabitants of Roach, post, 6 vol. 247.
(e) Absent, Buller, J.
(d) Vide R. v. Broadhembury, H. 25 Geo. 3, Cald.
973
4 T. R. 202.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0010&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)