Andrews the king and the inhabitant OF Sowton in Devonshire residence for day  in the parish wherein a man have a estate of his own except it be by purchase  under be sufficient to gain a settlement though it be not on the estate or  successive it gain a settlement also for his child they not have gain a  settlement of their own but remain part of his family though live elsewhere SC  burr SC a order of justice be nade for the removal of Thomas will and his wife  and their child from Sowton to Sidbury which order upon appeal be set aside  and the case appearedupon the session order to be this Andrews er p Thomas  will the pauper rend a estate in Sowton at the rend of per and and be distrain  for the say rend he leave the estate and have a estate in his own right for a  land or term of year of the value of S per and in Sidbury be go there take it  for his home or habitation and the same be in the possession of a undertenant  in consideration of pay by the tenant the pauper accept a surrender of his  lease and have the key of the house deliver to he and take possession of the  estate he continue at Sidbury from November to April and occupy the estate  during that time cut the hedge weed the ground and sow turnip therein but he  pay no tax and have no stock on the land nor have any good not so much as bed  in his house at Sidbury but lodge at a public house there as a guest or  traveller without have a particular room assign to he during the pauper stay  at Sidbury be continue there forty day in the whole but not successive and  altogether and go frequent to Sowton to see his wife and child who be leave  behind and remain at Sowton where be stay sometime a week at a time and be go  to other place about his affair and be at other place for so long a time as at  Sidbury during the say five month afterward in April the pauper sell his  estate and go back to Sowton from whence he be remove by the justice order to  Sidbury with his wife and child the young of who be about eight and other  about twenty or thirty but it Andrews be not fix that any of they have gain  any settlement of their own and it be move last term by sergeant Hussey to  quash the order of session and to confirm the original order and be argue that  the father be well remove by the first order to Sidbury for a person by live  upon his own estate gain a settlement although be continue there for a few day  only and this not by any Act of parliament but by construction of law because  no one shall be deprive of or remove from his property in the case of the  parish of Walton and Montpealy mich g it be lie down as a general rule by  Parker c j that by doming to and dwell upon a estate of his own for forty day  a per son gain a settlement and in the case of the parish of EastGoodaway and  Munclere a stram v burr SC Cas set Rem p a it be hold that a certificateman  who come and live upon a copybold estate which he have in the right of his  wife gain thereby a settlement in the present case the pauper interest in the  estate appear to be a beneficial one it be state that he have it for a term or  term of year in his own right that it be of S per and and that be sell it  beside the court will intend it to be a beneficial interest unless the  contrary appear the parish of Heaver and Sunbridge in ken b burr SC b Trin geo  it be there state that the father of t g the pauper have a estate for ninety  dine year which he hold at the rend of S per and and he devise it to t g upon  condition to pay to his mother if she shall live long enough to spend the same  and it be determine by Lord Hardwicke that the interest shall be intend tobe  of a beneficial nature as to the time of the pauper residence at Sidbury it be  mention to be five month and though he be absent for some part of the time  this be not material a residence for forty day in the whole and not successive  be within the statute he be certain a commorant for the purpose of attend the  leet and as to the manner of his residence it appear that be cultivate the  estate and take it for his home so that it be Andrews such a residence from  whence the pauper can not be remove and consequent be sufficient to acquire a  settlement it have be hold that if a apprentice be bind in one parish and  lodge in another be gain a settlement in the place where he lodge and it  appear by the car cap sect that a sojourner may gain a settlement with respect  to the value of the estate it be worth S per and and consequent above and  therefore this case fall within the statute of g c in the present case the  settlement of all the child attend that of the father they be a part of his  family the parish of and Marston Trin I g there the father after gain a  settlement in one parish acquire a new one in another by rend a estate there  but leave his child behind he and afterward die and it be hold that the child  be settle in the last parish but otherwise it be in the case of a mother as it  be determine in the parish of saint Catherine near the tower and saint George  in Southwark c Lord raym fort Foley burr SC v king v Woodend fort ld ray Foley  c I upon the whole matter therefore the father and child be well remove by the  original order to Sidbury Andrews er p on the other side it be object by Mr  Gundry to the settlement of the father at Sidbury that his interest in the  estate do not appear to be sufficient for this purpose for it be only state to  be a term or term for year without mention the number of year or whether it be  a beneficial interest or how the pauper come by it whether as executor or  administrator or as a purchaser and if it be by purchase this shall have be  show to have be make before the Act of g or if the purchase be make since the  considerationmoney shall have appear to be or upward now none of these  circumstance can be supply by intendment as in the case of rend a tenement  where it be not set out to be of per and this shall not be presume and so it  be where notice be require and it be state Andrews only that a person come to  reside in a parish without show that he give notice salk the manner of the  pauper hold the estate be not sufficient for the gain a new settlement as it  appear by the circumstance hereof that he do not intend to reside at Sidbury  salk SC Mod neither be his stay there long enough for that purpose for it be  state that he do not continue at Sidbury for forty day successive and that he  be for as much of the five month at Sowton as Sidbury he may not perhaps be  absent from Sowton for forty successive day and it be as reasonable that so  short and break a absence shall not avoid a settlement as that a residence for  the same time and in the same manner shall gain one upon the old law a  residence for forty day be necessary for a person to attend courtleets and on  the statute of car a inhabitancy for forty day be necessary though it must be  admit that these need not be successive but suppose the father be well remove  to Sidbury the child be not because they be all above the age of nursechildren  and the reason why nursechildren shall follow the settlement of the parent be  because they stand in need of his care which do not extend to the present case  salk the parish of BastGoodaway and WestGoodaway d stram d Trin g the parish  of saint Michael in Norwich and of saint Margaret e saint matthews stram e in  Ipswich east g lee c j the pauper have certain no settlement at Sowton if he  obtain one at Sidbury which be the point in question and to determine this it  be proper to be consider whether it appear he have such a interest in the  estate as be proper his own and contradistinguish to a rackrented estate the  case be not state so full as it shall have be for it shall have be show by  what title the pauper come by the estate whether by act of law as a executor  or by devise or purchase or in what other manner as this be not do we Andrews  can intend that ho be a purchaser thereof and consequent this case do not fall  within the late Act however upon the circumstance set out in the session order  the estate do seem to be of a beneficial nature and the pauper be mention to  have have it in his own right and consequent the quantum of the value be not  material because the owner have a right to be where his estate lie and so it  have be determine the next matter to be consider be the pauper residence at  Sidbury it be right admit at the bar that it be not necessary upon the statute  of car the continuance shall be for forty day successive in the case of the  parish of Edgware and harrow f burr SC fort f east Ann it be hold that a  residence for forty day where the party be irremovable for that time gain a  settlement and upon the old law when a man come to a place on the first day he  be regard as a stranger on the second as a guest and on the three as a  inhabitant and a place of settlement which be a modern term and have arise  from the act of removal be a place of habitation now in this case it be plain  from what be say under the former head that the pauper be irremovable while he  be at Sidbury and though he lodge at a public house this be not very material  because a man may have a year in a parish and no house there and the reason of  his go to Sowton and other place be mention to be for the purpose of see his  family and about his affair object that the party settlement at Sowton be not  determine because it do not appear he be absent from thence for forty  successive day answer this point depend on the question whether he be long  enough at Sidbury to gain one there for if so then he lose his former  settlement at the other place upon the whole therefore we must take the estate  to be a beneficial interest and the property of the pauper and his residence  at Sidbury be such as be sufficient to gain he a settlement there Andrews as  to the other point there have be some diversity of opinion among the judge how  far the settlement of child shall be derive from that of the father Andrews er  p in the case before cite of Edgware and harrow it be say by Parker c j that a  child can be send to the place of the father settlement unless the child bath  be there for that he derive a settlement from his father not as he do all  inheritance but by reason of his be in a place from whence be can not be  remove while he be with his father but in the case of the parish of Eversley  and blackwater g fort ld ray stram g where that objection be take by Mr reeve  the court hold that a child may be send to the place of his father settlement  though be bath never be there which be that case but the child be only two  year old in the case of the parish of baste Goodaway and west Goodaway h stram  h Trin g where the child be of a considerable age and part from his father it  be hold that be can not be send to the place of his father settlement and so  it be resolve in the case of saint Michael Norwich and saint matthews Ipswich  I stram Barnard S p king bugden burr SC will I where the child have be twelve  year part from his father and emancipate from he and also marry this therefore  be the true distinction that where a child remain in his father house and have  gain no settlement of his own his settlement shall attend that of his father  but otherwise it be where he have be separate from his father and have gain a  settlement of his own the consequence be that as in this case the child have  always continue in the father family and it be not state that they have gain a  settlement of their own though some of they be twenty or thirty year old they  be settle where the father S and the law be the same in the case of a mother  as of a father the rest of the court be of the same opinion with the chief  justice upon both point and for the same reason and therefore the order of  justice be now confirm and the order of session quash Andrews note the  exception to the settlement of the child be overrule upon the first argument  but the order consist of many circumstance copy thereof be then direct to be  give to the judge in order to consider the other point