The Queen against The Inhabitants of Scammonden
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 January 1846 |
| Date | 17 January 1846 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 908
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 2 New Sess. Cas. 189; 15 L. J. M. C. 30; 10 Jur. 110.
908 THE QUEEN V. SOAMMONDEN 8 Q. B. 349. [349] the queen against the inhabitants of scammonden. Saturday, January 17th, 1846. For the purpose of settlement, a son is not emancipated before the age of 21, unless he marries and so becomes the head of a family, or contracts aome other relation so as wholly and permanently to exclude the parental controul. H. lived, till he was 17 years old, with his father; he then voluntarily entered the local Militia and was sworn in for four years. He served, as required by law, 28 days in each year, and, during the residue of the time, worked as a weaver for wages, and maintained himself; aaw his father occasionally, but never returned to live with him ; and at the age of 20 he married. Held, that H. was emancipated on his marriage and not before, for that neither the service in the Militia nor the employment at other times as a weaver created any relation permanently excluding parental controul, and the emancipation by marriage did not relate back to the time when H. separated himself from his father. And, therefore, that H. derived from his father a settlement acquired by him between that separation and the marriage. [S. C. 2 New Sess. Cas. 189; 15 L. J. M. C. 30; 10 Jur. 110.] On appeal against an order of justices (October 7tb, 1843), removing Alice Hirst, single woman, and her bastard child, aged eleven mouths, from the township of Barkisland, in the West Biding of Yorkshire, to the parish, township or place of Scammoudeu in the same riding, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case. James Hirst, the father of the pauper Alice Hirst, lived with his father, Arthur Hirst, in the appellant township, until he was about seventeen years of age, when he voluntarily entered the local Militia, and was sworn in for the term of four years. At that time Arthur Hirst's settlement was in the appellant township. James Hirst served as a militiaman for twenty-eight days in each of the four years, and lived the remaining eleven months of each year with an uncle in the respondent township, where he continued to follow his own business of a weaver, and maintained himself. He never returned to bis father, his father having got married again and gone to live at Eipponden in Soyland in the West Riding ; but he, James, saw his father occasionally. James got married when about twenty years of age. Between the times of his entering the Militia and getting married, and when he was about [360] eighteen years of age, his father Arthur acquired a settlement in the township of Soyland, in the said riding1, by renting a tenement. Neither the pauper Alice Hirst nor her father James-Hirst ever acquired a settlement in their own right. Upon these facts the appellants contended that James Hirst, and consequently the-pauper, acquired the settlement so obtained by his father, Arthur Hirst, in Soyland, as he was then under age and unemancipated. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that James Hirst did not acquire such settlement from his father, Arthur Hirst, as he was emancipated at the time when such settlement was gained. The sessions held that James Hirst was emancipated when hia father Arthur Hirst acquired...
To continue reading
Request your trial