both under the control of at B., but not full wages; and the master refused to give up the indentures, till the expiration of the term expressed therein. The Court were of opinion, that the military duties, to which the apprentice was liable, on the permanent staff of the local militia, rendered him not sui juris, and prevented his gaining a settlement by the service and inhabitancy in the parish of B. —ABBOTT C. J. In this case, I am of opinion, that the pauper gained a settlement by his residence in B. It is not necessary for the Court to consider what would have been the effect, if the residence had been separate from that of his master, in consequence of his being in the local militia. Here he continued to reside in the same place with his master, and continued to serve him during the whole period. That is expressly stated as a fact by the Sessions; and it is not impossible, that during a great part of the time, he might be actually serving his master. It is not necessary that the party should reside in a place, because he is an apprentice, so as to (a) Ante,pl.532. give him a settlement there; for Rex v. Stratford on Avon (a) is a distinct authority to the contrary. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the order of Sessions ought to be quashed. -BAYLEY J. The best rule for us is to abide by the words of the statute 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11. Those words are, that if any person shall be bound an apprentice, and inhabit in any town, such binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement. Now here there was a valid binding, and the pauper resided in B. for 40 days, where his master was at the time, and continued to do acts of service whilst he was so resident. His residence, therefore, was not wholly foreign to the purposes of the indenture, and was sufficient to confer a settlement. HOLROYD J. I am of the same opinion. The pauper gained a settlement in B. by his residence there. I see nothing in the case to show that his obligation to serve under the indenture was put an end to. It appears to me, that his service might lawfully continue; and, in point of fact, it did so continue during all the time. It is said, that the ground for his residence in B., was, because he was a soldier; and so, in the case of Rex v. Stratford on Avon, the residence of the apprentice was in order that he might be cured of a sickness. Yet, inasmuch as it appeared there, that he continued to do acts of service for his master, notwithstanding his sickness, it was held, that the residence was sufficient to confer a settlement. case seems to me to govern the present; and I am, therefore, of opinion, that the order of Sessions ought to be quashed.— Order of Sessions quashed. By an indenture of apprentice ship it was stipulated, that the master should provide meat, &c., during the term, except in the winter seasons, when the ship to which the apprentice belonged should That 537. Rex v. Brotton (b), M. T. 1 G. 4. 4 B. & A. 84. Upon appeal against an order by which M., his wife, and two children, were removed from the township of W. to B., the Sessions confirmed the order, subject, &c. The pauper, M., was bound apprentice for the term of four years, by indenture, bearing date the 11th of March 1813, and made between M. the elder, and M. the younger, of the one part, and one B., master-mariner and shipowner, of the other part. In which indenture it was provided, amongst other things, that the said master should find and provide for his said apprentice sufficient meat, drink, washing and lodging, during the said term, except in the winter seasons, when the ship to which he should belong should be laid by unrigged, (b) See Rex v. Ilkeston, post, pl. 538. to be main this stipulation, during which time it was agreed, that the said apprentice should be laid by unmaintain himself, or be maintained by his friends; and in lieu and rigged; during satisfaction thereof, the said master should pay him, the said which time the apprentice, the sum of 6s. a week, weekly and every week, apprentice was during such time as the said apprentice should not be maintained tained by himby his said master; and that the said master should pay, or self or friends, cause to be paid, unto the said apprentice, as and for wages for the master paysuch his service, the sum of 75l., in manner following; (that is to ing a compensay,) 127. for the first year; 161. for the second year; 20. for sation. Under the third year; and 271. for the fourth year; also 12s. a year the apprentice, for washing. The said pauper, while the ship was laid up at W., during the in which he served his said master as an apprentice, during the winter, resided apprenticeship, resided, occasionally, during the winter, with his with his parents, in the township parents, in B; and in the whole, for considerably more than 40 of B., for more days; and he slept the last night, during the continuance of the than 40 days, apprenticeship, at B. B. is 20 miles distance from W., and the not doing any pauper did not do any work for his master while he resided there, work for his but was liable to have been recalled by his master at any time, if master during he had been wanted at the ship. The Sessions were of opinion, Held, that this that by this residence at B. a settlement was gained. ABBOTT C. J. This appears to me to be a stronger case than the one dence under which has been cited, and that on the very ground on which it the indenture, has been attempted to be distinguished from it. Here there was a and conferred distinct stipulation in the indenture, by which the master dis- no settlement. pensed with the service of his apprentice, during the winter season, the period when this residence at B. took place. The residence, therefore, is not at all connected with a service; but is, by the very words of the indenture, disconnected from it. Then the case cited is an express authority to show, that an apprentice, by such a residence, does not acquire a settlement. The order of Sessions, must, therefore, be quashed. - Order of Sessions quashed. such residence: was not a resi An apprentice who lived and worked with his master in the parish of I., went home to turday, and 538. Rex v. Ilkeston, E. T. 6 G. 4. 4 B. & C. 64. The pauper, W. was removed from R. to I. The Sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject, &c. J. W. the pauper's husband was bound apprentice by indenture dated 22d of December 1818; for the term of seven years to R. a boat-builder, an inhabitant of I. During the first two years of his apprenticeship, the his father's, in pauper's husband lodged with his father in the parish of R., the parish serving his master in I. Afterwards, he lodged and worked R., every Sawith his master in I., but regularly, and with the knowledge and consent of his master, went to his father's at R., on the Saturday night, and slept there on the Saturday and Sunday nights, and returned to his master at I., on the Monday morning. On the Saturday before the N. fair, in the month of October 1822, the returned to pauper's husband went to his father's as usual, and slept there on work on Monthe Saturday and Sunday nights, and returned to his master's on day morning. the Monday, and worked for him that day, and in the evening The apprentice asked and obtained his master's permission to go home again, having returned for the purpose of being at the fair at N., on the following day. He left his master that evening accordingly, and never returned, having enlisted for a soldier a few days afterwards. The Monday left his pauper's husband did no work for his master in R., on the Sa- evening, and turday night and Sunday, nor at any other time, when he was at his father's. The indentures were retained by the master, till and worked as usual, on a master in the never returned: Held, that the sleeping in R., being merely by way of indul gence, and not of the apprenticeship, was not sufficient to confer a settlement. applied for some days after the pauper had enlisted, when he gave them up. ABBOTT C. J. I am of opinion, that the pauper did not gain a settlement in R., the place of his father's residence, at which he slept on Saturday and Sunday nights, but at I. the for the purposes place of his master's residence, where he slept the other five nights in each week. The words of 3 W. & M. c. 11. s. 8. are "If any person shall be bound an apprentice by indenture, and "inhabit in any town or parish, such binding and inhabitation "shall be adjudged a good settlement." The true construction of that provision appears to be, that the inhabitation must be in the character of an apprentice, and in some way or other in furtherance of the object of the apprenticeship. An inhabitation by indulgence, then, is not within the statute. The case before us states, that the pauper worked and lodged with his master in I., but with the consent of his master went on Saturday night to his father's at R., and spent Sunday with him, and returned to his work on Monday morning; that certainly was a residence in R. by indulgence only. There may indeed be cases, and some such have arisen, where an inhabitation in a parish different from that in which the master resides, may be in furtherance of the service; for instance, where a master cannot take an apprentice into his own house, and appoints or allows him to choose a residence in another parish, so that he may return to his work every morning. But the facts of this case show that the sleeping in R. was merely for recreation, and had no connexion with the service. The apprentice did not, therefore, gain any settlement in that parish, and the order of the Sessions was right. BAYLEY J. Where the master appoints no place for the pauper to sleep, or appoints a place out of the parish where the service is performed, I agree that a settlement is gained in the parish where the apprentice sleeps, and that was the ground on which Rex v. (a) Ante,pl.526. Castleton (a), & Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon (b), proceeded. Le (b) Ante,pl.532. Blanc J. expressly put the latter case on the ground that the pau per slept in O. S. as an apprentice. But if an apprentice in general resides with his master, and is allowed once a week, as an indulgence, to visit his parents in another parish, he does not lodge there as an apprentice, and I cannot see that the case is varied, whether the indulgence be for days or months. If so, (c) Ante,pl.535. this case is decided by Rex v. St. Mary Bredin (c), & Rex v. (d) Ante,pl,587. Brotton (d). - HOLROYD J. concurred. Order of Sessions con The bankruptcy of the master of an apprentice does not discharge the indentures; although the master ab sconded, and afterwards delivered the indentures to the person firmed. IV. Of discharging the Indentures. 539. Buckington v. Shepton Bechamp, E. T. 10 G.1. MSS.A. was bound an apprentice at twelve years of age to C. of B., where he served and inhabited with his master for two years. Soon afterwards C. became a bankrupt, upon which A., without the direction or consent of C., hired himself as a servant for a year to G. of S. B., and served him accordingly in the said parish for two years. During this service in S. B. the term of his apprenticeship expired, and C. delivered up the indenture to his master G. THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, that A. gained no settlement by his service in S. B.; for the bankruptcy of the master did not discharge the apprentice from his indentures, and, therefore, not being sti juris, he could not hire himself whom the ap- Ld. Ray. 1352. Str.582. 1 Sess. Cas. 278. 8 Mod. 235. Fort. 321. Foley, 229. hired himself as a yearly servant. S. C. Sett, and Rem. 117. pl. 155. See Rex v. If indentures be exchanged be.. tween the master and the ap prentice's father, with the 540. Rex v. St. Mary Kallendar, T. T. 21 & 22 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 274.—M. was bound by indenture an apprentice for seven years, to G. of St. M.'s, and, under that indenture, lived with G., and served him in St. M. for five years. At the end of the five years he left his master, and the indentures were exchanged between the master and the apprentice's father, by consent of the consent of the apprentice. About one year afterwards the father contracted apprentice, the with S. of T. for binding the said M. apprentice to him for four indentures are thereby viryears; and M. went to S. on trial, and lived with him in T. for tually canone year and three quarters; but no indenture was executed, nor celled. any other agreement made. During the time M. lived with S., S. C. vol. i. pl. G., his former master, lived within four miles of T., and knew of 633. his being in S.'s service. But no other proof was made that G. consented to the agreement between M.'s father and S.- THE COURT: There can be no ground to consider this as a settlement at T., but upon supposing the first indentures to have subsisted, and that the service at T. was under them. But that could not be, because the exchange of the indentures certainly amounted, either in law or equity, (and they are the same thing in this case,) to a cancelling of them, and a determination of the apprenticeship under them. Besides, there is no consent of the original master; but the contrary is apparent. His knowledge of the fact does not at all imply his consent to the transaction. The apprentice's living at T. was not under, but contrary to the first indenture; it was in consequence of a fresh agreement, and for a new term. being hired for year, subse 541. Rex v. Eakring, E. T. 26 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 320. — W., a An apprentice poor child of E., was put out by the proper officers, by indentures may gain a setregularly executed, and allowed by two justices of peace, to T. of tlement by E., to serve him as a parish apprentice till he should accomplish and serving a his age of 20 years, and he served his master under these indentures for several years at E. About three years before he attained quent to the 20 years of age, he ran away from his master, and loitered, for death of his some time, about the country. In June 1749, Tomlinson, the master; for by master, died; and, at the Martinmas after, W. hired himself as a death the inservant to F. of S., for a year, and served him that year at S.; dentures are and at Martinmas 1750, hired himself for another year, and served discharged. that year also with F. at S.; and received all his wages to his S. C. vol. i. own use, the executors of T. taking no notice of him: but he did pl. 697. not attain his age of 20 years till January 1750. It was contended, that after the master's death the apprentice was at liberty to hire the master's Parish inden tures cannot be discharged by an infant apprentice, for his consent for that purpose is of no validity. Indentures mu tually given up by the master and the apprentice, are thereby virtually cancelled. A parish-apprentice bound out until he shall attain the after he has attained the age of 21, cancel the indentures, of his master, himself; and as he was hired for a year, and had served a year in S., his legal settlement was there. Apprenticeship is a personal trust between the master and servant, and is determined by the death of either master or apprentice. And THE COURT was of the same opinion. 542. Rex v. Austrey, H. T. 31 G.2. Burr. S. C. 441.— O., a poor child above 10 years of age, being bound by indenture by the parish-officers of G., pursuant to the 43 Eliz. c. 2. § 5., served and inhabited with his master in G., under the indenture, which was dated in April 1744, until Michaelmas 1754, at which time his master, in consideration of 40 shillings then paid him by the pauper, agreed to discharge the pauper from his apprenticeship; which receipt and discharge were written by the master on the back of the indentures, which he then delivered up to his apprentice. THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that as it appeared by the order that he must have been under age at the time of his consenting to his discharge, that the indentures were not thereby vacated; for the consent of an infant apprentice can signify nothing, nor be of any validity. 543. Rex v. Titchfield, M. T. 4 G. 3. Burr. S. C. 511.- W. bound himself an apprentice by indenture, dated the 24th day of March 1761, for three years to F., master and mariner, and inhabited above 40 days with his master in M.; but falling sick, he on account thereof, and with the consent of his master, went to his father in the parish of B., and there continued 40 days, and was sick at that time, and to the time the order was made. On his going to his father the indentures were mutually given up, but not cancelled. THE COURT were unanimously of opinion, that an inhabitancy by reason of sickness shall not gain a settlement; for suppose a servant break his leg in a strange parish, and cannot be moved within 40 days, shall that gain a settlement there? and there is no difference between the indenture being given up and its being cancelled; they amount to the same thing. 544. Rex v. Ecclesal Bierlow, E. T. 6 G.3. Burr. S. C. 562. —The pauper, being 16 years of age, was bound out, by the parish, an apprentice to A., a cutler, and an inhabitant of the township of E., for the term of eight years. He resided there, under that age of 24, may, indenture, upwards of five years. After he had attained the age of 21 years, he and his master came to an agreement together to cancel the indentures of apprenticeship: and thereupon the master delivered up the indentures to the pauper to be cancelled; and the same were accordingly cancelled. Afterwards the pauper was hired for a year to M. of W., and served for a year in W. in pursuance of such hiring, and received his whole year's wages. — LORD MANSFIELD: There seems to be no necessity of the parishofficers joining in the consent to discharge this apprentice. There is no authority for it; and I see no inconvenience to the parish, See the case of or to any one else, in its being done without their concurrence. The act of parliament empowers them to bind the man-child out apprentice till he come to the age of 24. And the act of parliament was necessary to make valid the binding of the male parishapprentice till his age of 24; for he could not be bound longer than till 21 without the aid of the act; and two justices of the peace are to assent to this. But the same reason does not hold as to the discharge of the apprentice; this concerns the master and the apprentice only. The latter part of the apprentice's Rex v. Lang ham, post, pl. 569. |