time, the indentures to master till the money was paid. give him 77. for the rest of his time, his master not wishing to turn him over to any one; and it was agreed that the master should remain with the keep the indentures in his custody till the 7. were paid, which was to be discharged from time to time as the pauper could earn it and make it convenient to pay it. The pauper considered himself at liberty to work with any master he pleased, and did work with different masters until the harvest of 1779, when, at the request of his former master, G., he came to serve him as a labourer for about a month, and received his wages according to the rate usually given to labourers in the time of harvest; the amount being deducted from the 77. which the pauper had agreed to pay to G. G. afterwards recommended the pauper to serve one C., a blacksmith in M., into whose service he went with the knowledge of G., and continued therein about 12 months. The indentures were not delivered up until five or six years after the apprenticeship had expired. LORD KENYON C. J. It is clear that in general an apprentice is not capable of contracting the relation of servant to any other master until the end of the term for which he was bound. But it is equally clear that if the master and apprentice put an end to the apprenticeship by mutual consent, it is the same as if the indentures had never been executed, and the latter may gain a settlement by hiring and service with any other master before the expiration of the time which he was bound to serve as an apprentice. Then there is a third case, that where the apprentice leaves his master and enters into the service of another, if the indenture still subsist, he is not sui juris, but is incapable of gaining a settlement by serving another master, unless he serve with the consent of his former master, and in such case he gains a settlement, not as a hired servant, but as an apprentice. These are axioms in this branch of settlement-law, and cannot now be called in question. Now what are the facts of this case? the pauper was bound an apprentice to a master residing in R., who two years afterwards discontinued business; at this time the parties did not put an end to the apprenticeship, but, on the contrary, the apprentice agreed to pay 71. to the master, who was to keep the indenture until that sum was paid; the master, all this time, keeping a control over the apprentice. The pauper then went into different situations, and, among the rest, he served a person of the name of C., into whose service he went at the recommendation and with the knowledge of his first master, the indentures still continuing in force. Then, according to all the authorities, this must be deemed a service under the indentures. The case of Rex (a) Ante,pl.572. V. Sandford (a) differs from the present in a very essential point. There the parties did all they could to put an end to the apprenticeship; but here they agreed that the indentures should continue in force. My opinion in this case does not proceed on the ground that the pauper served C. a year as a hired servant, but that he served him under the indentures of apprenticeship with the consent of his original master. Where an infant bound himself apprentice for seven years by indenture, to which indenture he and his mas ter were the 551. Rex v. Mount-Sorrell, H. T. 55 G. 3. 3 M. & S. 497. Removal from B. L. to M. S. - Order confirmed, subject, &c. The pauper, in 1807, being under age, bound himself apprentice by indenture for seven years to a person residing in M. S., the pauper and the master being the only parties to the indenture. When the pauper had served about a year, the master left his house and run away for debt, in consequence of which the pauper the master's master's con and served a was for the applied to him by letter to give up the indenture, and with the only parties, and master's consent the indenture was given up to the pauper by the after serving person who had the custody of it; the term of seven years not some time, in having then expired, and the pauper being still under age. The consequence of consent of the pauper's mother, who was his only surviving parent, running away was not asked at the time of making the indenture, or when it was and leaving given up. The pauper, after the indenture was given up, and him, procured during the term for which it was made, and while he was under the indenture to age, hired himself as a yearly servant, and served the year in be given up to B. L. The case of Rex v. Hindringham (a) was cited.-ELLEN- him with the BOROUGH C. J. Is not this a case in which it was clearly for the sent, and afterbenefit of both parties that the indenture should be put an end to? wards, during The master had run away, and was no longer in a situation to the seven years, afford instruction or maintenance to his apprentice. Therefore, hired himself as if the indenture had continued, the consequence must have been, a yearly servant, that the apprentice would have remained in a state of ignorance year: Held, and starvation. If that were a state for the benefit of the infant, that he acquired there would be something for the argument. But as it is, the a settlement by parties have done that for themselves which the magistrates, upon such hiring and application to them, would have ordered to be done, they have service, for it discharged themselves of the indenture which was burdensome to infant's benefit, both parties. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion, that under the cirit was competent to them to discharge themselves of each other, cumstances, since the continuance of the contract would certainly have been that he and his of no benefit to the master, and as certainly would have been master should prejudicial to the apprentice. The benefit of the infant is to be regarded, and in looking to that, one cannot but see that idleness, the indenture. and the probability of extreme indigence, were the necessary (a) Ante,pl.548. consequences of continuing the indenture from which the magistrates would have interposed to relieve him. I therefore think that we do not indulge any mischievous discretion in the infant, when we permit him to redeem himself from such a probable state of indigence and idleness. Then, if this be so, the pauper was no longer precluded from entering into another service than while his indenture continued. — LE BLANC J. In Rex v. Hindringham, the master and apprentice did not consent to the indenture's being delivered up or cancelled. - BAYLEY J. I consider the case of Rex v. Hindringham as having proceeded upon the ground that it was for the infant's benefit that the indentures should continue. Here we are in a case where it was notoriously to the prejudice of the infant that the indenture should continue; therefore, I think, it was in the power of the master and infant together, by vacating the indenture, to dissolve the contract. Order of Sessions quashed. be at liberty to put an end to 552. Rex v. Skeffington, H. T. 60 G. 3. and 1 G. 4. 3 B. & A. When the mo382. For the particulars of this case, see Vol. i. pl. 562. ther of an apprentice, whose time had not expired, applied to his master, to give him up to her, and the master having consented to it, and all having agreed to part, the apprentice went away; but the indenture, which was in the hands of a third person, was never applied for nor given up: Held, that the apprenticeship was not put an end to by this agreement, although the master said that he would have given up the indenture, if he had had it in his possession at the time, and afterwards refused to take back the apprentice. 553. Rex v. Great Wigston, M. T. 5G.4. 3 B. & C. 484. By order, dated the 3d day of February 1823, John Stanyan, his wife Mary, and their child Olive, were directed to be removed from St. M. to W. On appeal, the Sessions confirmed the order, An infant bound himself apprentice for served three of seven years, and them; having then quarrelled with his master, the latter offered to sell him the remainder of his time for 6d. The infant paid the money, and went away, and bound himself to another mas ter in another parish: Held, that the infant had no power to dissolve the first apprentice- could be gained The subject, &c. The pauper, when he was 11 years of age, was bound apprentice to J. H., in G. W., for the term of seven years. The indenture was executed by the master, the pauper, and J. B., the grandfather of the pauper, the pauper's father being a soldier abroad. The grandfather paid a premium of 71. to H. The pauper served H. under this indenture for between three and four years at W., when some disagreement taking place between them, H. agreed to sell the pauper the remainder of his time for 6d. pauper accordingly paid H. the 6d., and left him on the same day. The indenture had never been in the possession of any of the parties, but had been kept for all the parties by the person who prepared it, and no application was made for it to be delivered up. The grandfather was not a party to the agreement for parting entered into between the pauper and his master, and was not even privy to it. A few days after the pauper left H., he bound himself apprentice to T. W., of the parish of St. M., for seven years, and served him under the indenture for five years, and resided during the whole of that time in that parish. Аввотт C. J. I am of opinion that the order of Sessions was right. It is a general rule of law, that an infant cannot do any act to bind himself, unless it be manifestly for his own benefit. Binding himself apprentice has been considered such an act, and therefore it has been held, that an infant is competent to make such a contract. If then it is for the benefit of the infant to bind himself an apprentice, it is impossible to say generally, that it is for his benefit to dissolve such a connexion; such a position involves a contradiction. That being the general rule, we must inquire whether in the particular instance it is for the advantage of the infant to dissolve his apprenticeship? In the case of Rex v. (a) Ante,pl.551. Mountsorrell (a), the master had absconded, and the infant could no longer derive instruction or support from him. Under those circumstances, the Court thought that the dissolution of the relation of master and apprentice was beneficial to the latter, for unless that had been done, the apprentice must have remained unemployed and uninstructed. Here are no facts stated whence we can infer that it was for the infant's benefit to put an end to the apprenticeship; this case therefore falls within the general rule, and the first binding not being dissolved, the second was necessarily invalid, and the service under it could not confer a settlement. BAYLEY J. The decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions upon this point was perfectly correct. The only error that they have committed was, in sending for our opinion a case upon which no reasonable doubt could be entertained. HOLROYD J. concurred. - Order of Sessions confirmed. An apprentice may be bound to one person, and serve another, and he shall gain a settlement with the master with whom he re- Str. 10. - V. Of binding to one Master and Service with another. 554. Holy Trinity v. Shoreditch, M. T. 3 G.1. PARKER C. J. delivered the resolution of the Court. order for the removal of one F. from the parish of H. T. to S.; by which it appears that F. was bound as an apprentice to one T., with intent that he should serve G.; which he did for three years. And it has been insisted, that he being bound to T., who lives in Trinity parish, his settlement is there; and not in S., where the service But we are of opinion the justices have done right in sending him to S., where the service actually was. It is the same thing as was. if T. had turned him over to G.; in which case there would have been no question, but he had gained a settlement in G.'s parish. If the master remove out of one parish into another, the apprentice gains a settlement if he live there 40 days. The turning over an apprentice is like the assigning any deed. In this case T. was only a trustee. There is a great deal of difference between apprentices and other servants; for apprentices are not presumed to become chargeable, because the trade and mystery they learn is their estate. Therefore, the order must be confirmed. 555. St. Olave's v. All-Hallows, T. T. 9 G. 1. 8 Mod. 169. The case was thus: One U. was bound apprentice to a farrier in the parish of St. O., and, having served two years of his time in that parish, was, by a verbal agreement between his master and one D., sent to serve the said D. in the parish of A. H. in L., and there he served him five years. Afterwards, coming back into the parish of St. O., and being likely to be chargeable, he was removed by an order of two justices to the parish of A. H.--THE COURT: This very point was determined in St. Leonard v. Holy Trinity (a): an apprentice was bound to a master living in one parish, and, serving some part of his time there, was, by verbal agreement made between his master and another, to serve out his time with that other master in another parish; and this was adjudged a good settlement in that other parish where he last served; for it shall be still intended that he served his first master upon that agreement, and that it was but a continuance of his apprenticeship. And so IT WAS ADJUDGED in the principal case. But the service with the second master must be with the con- S. C. Str. 354. 114. pl. 153. apprentice to the second 556. Rex v. St. George's, Hanover Square, M. T. 8 G. 2. Burr. And the consent S. C. 12.-W., a parish child, was bound apprentice to L., of is sufficiently St. G.; where "she served 40 days, and gained a settlement; and signified by his afterwards, during her apprenticeship, was, by parol agreement, hiring out the hired out by her master to H., in the parish of St. M.; where she resided and worked for one year and upwards, the said apprentice- master. ship continuing; during which time her master L. received her s. C. 2 Sess. wages, and found her in clothes. THE COURT said, that the Cases, 138. consent of the first master to the service of the apprentice with the second master under the indentures was in this case sufficiently expressed; and, after consideration, they were unanimously of opinion that W. had gained a settlement in St. M. Str. 1001. 53. notis. An apprentice, assigned by his master's widow, before adminis 557. Rex v. East Bridgeford (b), T. T. 13 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 133. - A. was bound apprentice by indentures to H., of O., webster, for nine years, and duly served him the first four years of the term at Ö. H. then dying intestate and insolvent, his widow, tration granted, without any administration taken out, assigned him over to G. of and turned S., a certificate man, for the remainder of the term, in consider- over by the ation of 31. paid to her by G.; and, pursuant thereto, he lived with assignee, under and served G. about a year and a half at S.; and then G., in con- a parol agreesideration of 40s. paid him by B., of B., did, with the consent of ment, to a third master, gains a A., assign him over, by verbal agreement, to B. for the remainder settlement by of the term of nine years; and he accordingly lived and served service with out the remainder of the term with B., at B.-THE WHOLE COURT such third were unanimous this was a good settlement in B., where the prentice lived above 40 days with B., since, to this assignment, though only a verbal one, there was the consent of all the parties concerned; and that he lived and inhabited at B. under the terms (b) See Rex v. Barnsley, post, pl. 580. ар master, under the original indentures. of the apprenticeship, as an apprentice bound according to the act of parliament. They observed, that an assignment of an apprentice is not considered as a strictly legal transaction, because the person of a man is not strictly and legally assignable; but it has been an equitable construction that where an apprentice has lived 40 days under an assignment, he shall thereby gain a settlement, because of the consent. The statute 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12. s. 1. requires the sending to the place where he lived as apprentice 40 days. The act of 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11. s. 8. only requires a binding. 558. St. Petrox v. Stoke Fleming, T. T. 19 G. 2. Bur. S. C. 250. - A. G. was, on the 5th of September 1733, bound by indenture a parish-apprentice to R. G., of St. P., till she should have accomplished her full age of 21 years. On the 17th June 1738, her mistress, by indorsement on the indenture, delivered it up, together with all her right, interest, and term of years then to come and unexpired, in the same, to F., of S. The pauper, being then of the age of 14, did, by indenture, dated 17th July 1738, voluntarily bind herself apprentice to the said F., to serve until the 1st of November 1744; and she served her master in S. from that time for several years. On the 1st of January 1745, she intruded into the parish of St. P., and on the 9th of the same month, the Sessions vacated the original indentures of the 5th of September 1733, on account of the binding not being pursuant to the alternative in the statute, viz. until she shall attain the age of 24 years, or the time of marriage. The pauper, on becoming chargeable, was removed from St. P. to S. THE COURT thought the original indenture not void for want of the alternative of marriage; though, perhaps, not obligatory upon the parties; and said, that although an assignment of an apprentice, except in London by custom, cannot strictly be made, yet, as this assignment was with the assent of the mistress, the service under it will be good for the purpose of gaining a settlement: for the servitude continued under the first binding. 559. Rex v. Clapham, E. T. 20 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 266. — The pauper, W., was bound a parish-apprentice, by the assent of two justices, to one J., of A., tenant to the Rev. Mr. J., of C., who had covenanted to indemnify his tenant against all parish charges. J. carried him to his landlord, together with the indenture, who accepted, received, and provided for him. He desired the mother to provide for the boy; who did so, for three years, in A.; and Mr. J. paid her 20s. a year. Then he lived with him in C. eight weeks; and then run away to his mother, and remained a quarter of a year in A.; and Mr. J. consented to his being there. Then the pauper was placed with his brother, a mason in A., as an apprentice, by Mr. J., who gave him a new suit of clothes; and he served his brother (a), as an apprentice, a twelvemonth or two, in A.; the brother took him as an apprentice, and quitted Mr. J. of him. But the representatives of the first master, who was then dead, knew nothing of this, nor ever assented to it; nor any thing of his living with his mother.-LEE C.J. The statute 3 & 4 Ŵ. & M. c. 11. s. 8. only requires a binding by indenture, and gives a settlement where the last 40 days are served. Here is a binding by in (a) It is not stated expressly "that the pauper served his brother, the mason, "under the indenture.' |