between the parish OF Hanmer in come flint and Ellesmere in come salop connect  service for a year although part of it not under the hire for a year give a  settlement barn b r Sess can p No upon a special order of session the case  state be that Randal fidian be unmarried and have no child be hire into  Hannier for a year and serve the same and afterward in he be still unmarried  and have no child be hire into Ellesmere in Salop to serve from ladyday to  Christmas follow which he do and be then hire again for a year by the same  master and serve to the end of may and the session adjudge it no settlement  and send he to Hanmer strange move to quash the order there be in the whole a  service for a year in Ellesmere and that be enough to satisfy the statute  which require both a hire and service for a year and cite the case of Overton  v Steventon hill W and king v inhabitant de Brightwell in come Berks in both  which it be hold that the service for a year need not be of the same identical  year for which the hire for a year be and upon the authority of these case the  court hold it a settlement in Ellesmere and quash the order of session that  adjudge it otherwise king v Southmoulton ld raym Brightwell v Westhally Bott  by Const pl king v aynhoe ib pl king v Fivehead Magdalen burr SC king v under  barrow and Bradley field ib king v Bagworth call king v Grendon Underwood ib S  p from these case it appear to be immaterial as to gain a settlement what be  the number or particular duration of each of these contract under which the  year service be perform that be to be couple with service under the yearly  hire provide they be connect it seem equal immaterial whether the nature of  the service perform under the several contract be different or riot provide  they be such as that a contract to perform each of they for a year and service  under it will be sufficient to give a settlement king v Wrinton burr SC where  it be hold that service under a weekly hire to burl cloth can not be couple  with service under a yearly hire so as to confer a settlement seem at first  view to contradict this opinion but the ground of that decision be that the  contract and not that the service be of a different nature the weekly hirings  be such as that service under a similar one will not confer a settlement  though it have be extend in its duration to a year Mr I foster lie particular  stress upon the pauper not be in her master service either at night or on  Sunday there be therefore a special exemption in the contract which not be  create by general law or by local custom but by the agreement of the party  will prevent settlement from attach to a year service under a similar contract  for a year as to which point vide king v Macclesfield burr SC king v Buckland  Denham ib king v Kingswinford term Rep king v north Nibley term Rep strange  report er p