Where the father of the pauper contracted with J. S. that his son should be with him, and should work allow 2s. per found in board, lodging, and clothes. The meaning of the parties, therefore, was, that the general service before contracted for should be restrained to such service as would enable the boy to learn his master's business. If an apprenticeship had been intended, there would have been words introduced into the agrecment binding the master to teach the boy; there being no such words of obligation on the master, and the written contract not having the ordinary words of binding to serve as an apprentice, and the intent of the parties, as collected from it, being at least equivocal, we are warranted by the cases in saying, that the object of it was merely to confine the general service before contracted for to such parts of the master's employ as would enable the boy to learn his business. If this, therefore, were to give an extraordinary benefit to the servant, the master might well stipulate for receiving such service without the payment of wages. Orders confirmed. 513. Rex v. Burbach, E. T. 53 G. 3. 1 M. & S. 370. — Removal from Burbach to St. M., Birmingham. Order quashed, subject, &c. The pauper being settled at Birmingham, his father made a verbal agreement with R. P. of Burbach, frameworkknitter, that his son should be with him (P.) and should work with him for two years, and have what he got, and that he should allow 28. per week out of his gains to P.; viz. 1s. for with him for two his (P.'s) teaching the business of a framework-knitter, 9d. for years, and have the rent of a frame, and 3d. for the standing of the frame. Nothing what he got, was said about his being an apprentice. The pauper went and and should served P. for two years at his house in Burbach, and had what he week out of his earned after the 2s. per week were deducted by P. who found a frame and all materials, but the pauper paid for the needles himself; and in regular work he earned about 10s. per week. The pauper had no right to work for any body else in P.'s frame, nor did he do so to P.'s knowledge: he received no wages, and boarded and slept all the time at the house of his father and mother in Burbach, where he also had his washing done for him; and he did not do any act as a servant for P. by his order; and on Sundays he was at his father's house. In support of the order of Sessions Rex v. Little Bolton (a), was relied on. - Against the order it was contended, 1st, that the son was no party to the contract: 2d, that the authority of R. v. Little Bolton had been doubted, and that in R. v. Shinfield (b), the circumstance of there having been no contract by the master to teach, weighed much with the Court. - LORD ELLENBOROUH C. J. The ground of argument taken is, that the father was the contracting party, and could not bind the son. It certainly cannot be contended that the son would at all events be bound by the contract of the father; but in every case if a contract be made by a person standing in a peculiar relation to another, on his behalf and for his benefit, and that other performs his part of the contract, there is no authority which should restrain me from leaving it to the jury whether he did adopt the contract. It seems absurd to say that if a party contract on my behalf to do work, and I do it, that (a) Ante,pl.316. the rule of omnis ratihabitio does not apply. Every jury upon (6) Ante, pl.512, such a question would find a previous mandatum evidenced by the service afterwards. Here the son is acting as servant; but if it were doubtful, the Sessions have drawn the conclusion, and have not submitted to us any question whether he was bound by the contract. The question then is, Whether this is a contract of gains to J. S., viz. 1s. for teaching him the business of a frame-knitter, 9d. for the rent of a frame, and 3d. for the standing: Held, that this was a contract of hiring and service, and not an apprenticeship; and that the son's having served under it was evidence that he had adopted the contract made by his father; and, therefore, he was entitled to a settlement by such hiring and service. hiring and service, or of apprenticeship? It certainly cannot be called an apprenticeship, nor does it bear any of its forms; for although there is mention of an allowance to be made by the son on account of the master's teaching him the business, yet that is not peculiar to the contract of apprenticeship: it enters into the contemplation of almost every contract of hiring and service, how far the servant has learnt his art, or stands in need of farther instruction; and according to his proficiency a consideration is made in the rate of wages. It is the measure to which each party resorts in apportioning the compensation; and if the circumstance of the servant's having to learn his art is to make any difference, it would change the nature of most contracts of hiring and service, even in the meanest situations, into that of an apprenticeship. As to Rex v. Little Bolton (a), without saying whether one (a) Ante,pl.316. quite approves the principle of that case, it is enough to say that the Court has been so much in the habit of acting upon that decision that it would now be dangerous to set it aside. I do not say that if that case were erroneous, and wholly destitute of legal foundation, it would not be right to set it aside; but if it stands on plausible grounds it ought not to be canvassed too nicely. This case is stronger than Rex v. Little Bolton; there the master agreed to teach the pauper if he would work with him two years and a half or three years; so that the teaching was the very essence of the contract. Here there is no express contract by the master to teach, only an allowance by the servant out of the earnings for teaching, which, perhaps, may amount to an implied one. I will not say that an action might not be maintained upon this contract for not teaching, although upon a demurrer to a declaration framed upon it there might be difficulty. Admitting, however, that such a contract may be inferred, it is by no means so clear as assumed in argument; and even if it were, it would not be so strong as Rex v. Little Bolton, which was an express contract. There Lord Mansfield observed upon the agreement not speaking of the pauper as an apprentice, and here there is no mention of apprenticeship, except as far as learning and teaching are ingredients in the contract of apprenticeship, which they are also in almost every contract of hiring and service regularly entered into. Therefore, without saying that Rex v. Little Bolton is not law, we cannot hold that this is not a good hiring and service. - GROSE J. The question is, Whether this is a hiring and service? I have no doubt it is. Looking at the agreement we may see what was the intention of the parties. The intention was that the pauper's husband should serve his master for two years, and he accordingly did serve him, and thus adopted the contract.-LE BLANC J. The statute law has enacted that a person may gain a settlement by apprenticeship or by hiring and service. But it has been decided, that if an apprenticeship be intended and not regularly carried into effect, it cannot enure as a hiring and service. A variety of questions, therefore, has arisen upon this distinction, whether the contract amounted to an apprenticeship or to a hiring and service; and whenever it has appeared from the nature of the contract that the parties intended an apprenticeship, although they have failed in perfecting it, the Court has decided that it could not take effect as a hiring and service. Here the Sessions have determined this to be good as a hiring and service, and unless the Court see that their conclusion is wrong, we are bound to confirm the order. It is not stated in the case whether the pauper was an adult or infant; and that his father agreed with the master that he should be with him and work for two years, is all that is stated with respect to the service. The contract is made with another person on his behalf, and he serves under it. That would be evidence upon which I should think a jury might infer that he adopted it. The Sessions have so inferred, and there is no objection. If that be so, there is no material difference between (a) Ante,pl.316. this case and that of Rex v. Little Bolton (a): with the exception of names, place, and trade, the cases are the same. It will not convert this contract into an apprenticeship, because the party was desirous of improving himself in the trade in which he was to work, or even stipulated for that purpose. Every workman who contracts for his labour, and is not perfect in his art, is desirous of learning more, and it forms an ingredient in every such contract. The Court, therefore, will not upon this ground hold it an apprenticeship, unless they see that something more than a hiring and service was intended. Now, here it was agreed that the pauper should work, and he did so: and he was to allow so much per week to his master for teaching him which is the only circumstance relied upon to show it an apprenticeship. The question is, Whether that is sufficient to show that the conclusion drawn by the Sessions was wrong? I think not, after the case of Rer v. Little Bolton; and even if the case were new, I am not prepared to say that this would give it so much the colour of an apprenticeship as to prevent this settlement. BAYLEY J. The Sessions might have trusted in this case to their own judgment, and should not grant cases unless they entertain serious doubts. They have drawn the conclusion, and unless we can say the premises do not warrant such a conclusion we ought to confirm it, although perhaps we might have drawn a different one. I do not say, however, in this case that we should. Allowing the utmost latitude in the arguments against the order, this was at least a contract of an equivocal nature, and the Sessions have decided upon it. I think they have decided rightly. Order of Sessions confirmed. Where the father agreed with R. that R. should take his son for six years, to teach him the trade of a framework knitter, and he was to allow R. 95. a week for 514. Rex v. Mount Sorrell, E. T. 54 G. 3. 2 M. & S. 460. — Removal from M. S. to Q. Order quashed, subject, &c.- When the pauper was about 13 years old, his father made an agreement with one R., of Q., that R. should take his son for six years, to teach him the trade of a framework-knitter, and he was to allow R. 9s. per week for the first three years, for teaching him, and his board and lodging. And the pauper served the time in Q. And whether he was settled in Q was the question. The Court distinguished this case from Rex v. Little Bolton (a), inasmuch as, by this contract, the son was entitled to none of his earnings; and years, for teach instead of receiving wages from his master, his master was to ing him and his receive wages from him as the price of teaching him; it was a board and lodg- hiring of the master to teach the apprentice. The whole contract ing: Held, with the father was bottomed, and had for its object the instruction defective con- of the son and nothing else.-Order of Sessions confirmed. tract of apprenticeship, and, therefore, the son did not gain a settlement under it. (a) Ante,pl. 316. the first three that this was a out a child of 515. Rex v. Kilby, E. T. 54 G. 3. 2 M. & S. 501.-Removal Where the pafrom K. to G. W.-Order quashed, subject, &c.-The pauper rish officers, was born at K. His father died when the pauper was an infant, wishing to put and the parish relieved the widow weekly, till he was nine years the age of nine old; at which time the parish-officers wished to put the pauper out years as apprenapprentice; but the widow objected. In consequence of her tice, upon the objecting, the parish-officers refused to give her any more relief. refusal of his When the pauper was about 11 years old, the widow being no mother withdrew her parish longer able to support him, and the parish refusing to relieve her allowance, but until the pauper was put apprentice, went to the parish-officer, and told him she would consent that her son should be put apprentice. He bid her choose a master, and she chose one D., of G. W., to whom the parish-officer agreed to give 31. 3s. in money, and other things, to the amount, in the whole, of 41. The parish-officer, the pauper, his mother, and D., met together, proposing to have the boy bound before the justices, and went before them for that purpose; but the justices finding, upon examination, that D. had as many apprentices as they thought he could do justice to, would not two years afterwards, she not being able to support him, went to the parish officer, and consented to her son's being put out, and by desire of let him have any more. The parish-officer then declared, if he theparish-officer chose a master, 31. 38. &c., and afterwards all the parties met and went the master had officer, declar could not have him bound there, he would have him bound in to whom the another place, and, accordingly, took all the parties to an inn, and parish-officer procured an indenture stamp, which was regularly filled up and agreed to give executed, and the pauper, with the consent of his mother, bound himself to D. for seven years. The premium, 37. 3s., and the other things, making up the 47., were to be delivered to D. at the expiration of six weeks from the execution of the indenture, at before the juswhich time D. went to K., and received them of the parish-officer. tices, who, The duty paid was 1s. 6d., being 6d. in the pound upon the 3., and thinking that all the expences of binding were paid by the parish. The pauper already a suffiserved D. in G. W., sufficient length of time to gain a settlement if cient number of the binding was good. The Sessions founded their judgment on apprentices, the ground of fraud upon the above facts. LORD ELLEN- refused to bind BOROUGH C. J. This does not appear to have been intended to the son, wherebe a binding as a parish-apprentice; if it did, it might be defective. upon the parishBut it is, independently of the statute, a binding with the consent ing that if he of the mother, the son, and the master. The justices have, indeed, could not have found fraud; but there are no circumstances to warrant such a him bound conclusion, except that, when the parties could not obtain the there, he would binding before the justices, they went elsewhere, and perfected it in another way. It is said, this was the parish money, and, perhaps, there has been a misapplication of it; but still there has been a valid binding; for the pauper, with his mother's consent, binds himself. If the mother had been a party to the indenture, and the action had been brought against her upon it, I do not see how she could have effectually pleaded per fraudem, or per minas.LE BLANC J. It appears that the mother chose the master, and it is not stated that the child was of an age not fit to be bound apprentice.-BAYLEY J. After the allowance was withdrawn, the mother might have obtained relief by application to the justices, if she had been entitled to it.-Order of Sessions quashed. the parties to an inn, and procured an inden ture, which was filled up and executed, and the mother's consent, bound himself for seven years: Held, that the the son, with Sessions were not warranted in finding fraud so as to defeat the settlement under the indenture. 516. Rex v. Arundel, T. T. 56 G. 3. 5 M. & S. 257.- Upon An infant may appeal the Quarter Sessions quashed an order for the removal of bind himself G. S. from A. to F., subject, &c.-The pauper was bound ap- indenture, be-, prentice to one B., by indenture, in the usual form, having a thirty cause it is for apprentice by his benefit; and though he be a pauper in the parish work house at the time of the binding, and the parish-officers pay the premium, yet it is not necessary that they should sign the indenture, or that the justice should assent thereto, if the apprentice be not a parish-appren tice within the meaning of the stat. 43 Eliz.c.2. An apprentice, by being bound, and serving in an extra-paro chial place, cannot be removed there. S. C.Carth.515. Salk. 486, 487. Sett. & Rem. 43. Foley, 98. An apprentice must reside 40 shilling stamp, and regularly executed by B. and the pauper, but -- III. Of the Time and the Place of Inhabitancy. 517. Clerkenwell v. Bridewell, H. T. 11 W. 3. Ld. Ray, 549. A., who had been educated in B., as an apprentice to one of the masters of the hospital, in the trade of hemp-dressing, came to the parish of C., and was removed by two justices from thence to B., which is an extra-parochial place.-HOLT C. J.: The justices of peace have no authority to settle any person in an extra-parochial place; for the statute which gives them authority extends only to the poor within parishes. Parishes in reputation are within the act, but places extra-parochial are out of the act. And the order of the justices was quashed. 518. Missenden v. Grimsfield, H. T. 1 G. 1. Foley, 157.-I. S. was bound an apprentice with J. N., at G., by indenture; but, |