pauper could prentice; and if it were not, then the service of the not confer a settlement. ABBOTT J. I am of the same opinion. The Sessions have drawn the only conclusion which persons of a sound understanding could have drawn from the facts stated. HOLROYD J. concurred.-Order of Sessions confirmed. of 583. Rex v. Barleston, E. T. 3 G. 4. 5 B. & A. 780.— Two justices removed Blockley and his family from H., to Barleston. The Sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject, &c. In support of the order, a settlement by apprenticeship under a parish indenture to G. in the appellant parish, was proved. The appellants, in order to show a subsequent settlement in the parish of St. Mary, in Leicester, gave in evidence a paper purporting to be an assignment of the pauper, in February 1812, by the said G. to D. of that parish, and proved a residence of more than 40 days in the same parish under that assignment. There was a premium of 51. paid by G. to the new master, but it was the sum which he, G. had received with the pauper, on the original binding from H. The instrument by which the assignment was made, was in writing, and was executed by G., D., and the pauper. The instrument, after reciting that the apprentice had about eight years his term unexpired, as appeared by his indenture; stated, that for divers good considerations, G. did fully and absolutely give, grant, assign, and set over unto D. of the borough of Leicester, framework-knitter, all such right, title, duty, term of years to come, service and demand whatsoever, which the said G. had, in or to the said B., or which he might or ought to have in him by virtue And the said G. covenanted with the said of the said indenture. D. that he, the said B., should, notwithstanding any thing to be done by G. during the said term of years, well and truly serve the said D. as his master, &c. Provided, that the said D. shall well entreat and use him, and learn him the craft, mystery, and occupation of a framework-knitter; and should also allow him sufficient meat, &c. which the said D. agreed to do in consideration of the services of the said apprentice; and also, the sum of 57. agreed to be paid by G. to D., being the said sum of money, which he, the said G. received with the said apprentice, from the churchwardens and overseers of H., on their putting and placing him, the said B., apprentice to the said G. It was objected by the respondents, that this assignment was not made under the 32 G. 3. c. 57. with the consent of two magistrates in writing; and, therefore, was not an instrument under which a settlement could be gained. The appellants contended, that it was a valid instrument which to confer a settlement, and cited the 56 G. 3. c. 139. § 9., passed subsequently to the assignment. The case was argued on a former day. ABBOTT C. J. We are of opinion that the pauper gained a settlement in the borough of Leicester, and, consequently, that the rule must be made absolute for quashing the order of removal, and the order of Sessions confirming the same. The assignment of the apprentice and the service to his new master, were prior to the prohibitory statute 56 G. 3. c. 139, and, The prior statute 32 G. 3. therefore, are not affected by it. Before c. 57-87. is not a prohibitory but an enabling statute. that statute, a master could not discharge himself from the obligation to maintain a parish apprentice, by assigning him to another person, nor were the apprentice and the new master subject to the VOL. II. HH Where a parish apprentice was assigned by his original master to J. S., by an instrument, in writing, but there was no consent of two magistrates: Held, that this was not a law ful assignment under 82 G. 3. c. 57. § 7., but it was sufficient first master, to settlement. ordinary jurisdiction of the justices, with respect to masters and I parish-apprentices. This appears by the preamble to the section, and then the act proceeds with certain enactments, whereby if the terms are complied with, these inconveniences are remedied. -If the terms are not complied with (and in the present instance they were not) the case is not within that statute; but it is to be considered, with regard to the law, as it stood before that act was passed. And so considered, although the assignment may be for many purposes inoperative, yet it manifests a consent of the first master to a service with the second, and renders that service a service under the original binding. This is established by the (a) Ante,pl.557. cases of Rex v. The Inhabitants of East Bridgeford (a), and Rez (b) Ante,pl.504. v. The Inhabitants of St. Petrox. (b.) In the first of those cases, the widow of the first master, who was of Orston, without taking out administration to her husband, assigned the apprentice to one G., at S., and G., afterwards, by parol, assigned him to one B., at E. B.; and it was held, that he gained a settlement by the service at E. B., by reason of the consent. In the last of those cases the service, under the original binding, was in St. P.: and the first mistress indorsed the indenture, and delivered it up, together with her interest in the apprentice, to one F., of S. F., and the apprentice, by a new indenture, to which the mistress was not a party, voluntarily bound herself to F., and served him at S. F.; and the Court held, that though an assignment of an apprentice (except by custom in London) cannot strictly be made; yet, as this assignment was with the assent of the mistress, the service under it would be good, for the purpose of conferring a settlement; for the servitude continued under the first binding. And these cases, and some others determined upon the same principle, appear to have been recognised by the Court, in the case of The (c) Ante,pl.579. King v. The Inhabitants of Christowe (c), in which case the first master had not assigned the apprentice, but had taken upon himself to bind her out anew, with her consent, to another person, by a new indenture of apprenticeship; and the Court, on that account, thought that the service to the second master could not be considered as a service under the original indenture. — Order of Sessions quashed. Before the expiration of the term of an apprenticeship, the apprentice asked his mistress leave to service, without mentioning where he was going. The mistress said 584. Rex v. Whitchurch, E. T. 4 G. 4. 1 B. & C. 575.-Upon appeal, against an order whereby Pierce, his wife and children, were removed from D. to W., the Sessions confirmed the order, subject, &c. The pauper, P., by an indenture of the 7th April 1798, was bound a parish apprentice, till 21 years of age, by the appellant parish, to one D., residing in the same parish, under go into another which he there served her for six years, when the indenture having still three years to run, and the pauper not agreeing with D.'s foreman, asked his mistress leave to go into another service, to which she consented, saying "she was not against it, if he could better himself." He did not mention where he was going. The pauper went to one J.'s, in the parish of R., and hired himself to him for a year, at 31. 16s. wages. He returned and told his mistress, who said, "Very well: she was not against it." In apprentice then a few days he went to his new place, and in about a fortnight went and hired returned to his old mistress for his clothes, who said, "she hoped "he liked his new place," and he said he did." Under these circumstances he lived with J., in the parish of R., three months. that she was not against it, if he could better himself. The himself to A B in another parish for a 4.67 year, at certain wages. He then returned to his mistress, and told her done, and she said that she was not against it. The apprentice then went to his lived with A.B. new place, and for three months: Held, that the service with A. B. was what he had not a service under the in -PER CURIAM: The question in this case is, whether the service with J. was a service under the indenture. It is clear that the justices have thought that it was not; because they have confirmed the order of removal. They have not said so in express terms, for then there could be no argument upon the subject before us; but they have left it to us to say, whether the conclusion they have come to was right or wrong. We are clearly of opinion, that their decision was right. Much subtlety has been introduced into this branch of the law, of which some of the cases cited furnish examples. Of late the Courts have inclined to decide these questions upon plain principles. In this case, it is impossible to say that the pauper served J. as an apprentice under the indenture. It does not appear that J. even knew that the pauper was an apprentice. It appears that D. had consented to the pauper's going into another service generally; but then he had not mentioned to her where he was going. Afterwards, when he had hired himself to J., he returned and told his mistress: but J's name was not even then mentioned; she did not dissent from it; but there was no express consent to that particular service. It has been urged, that the subsequent assent of the first master is sufficient to make the second service a service under the indenture; but the contrary is established by Rex v. St. Helen's, Stone Gate.(a) Besides, under these circumstances, the service to J. was under a contract of yearly hiring; the pauper served under that contract as a servant, and not under the indenture as an apprentice; and very different duties result, on both sides, from these different descriptions of service. The case of Rex v. The Inhabitants of Ashby-de-la-Zouch (b) is strongly in point with the present, the want of knowledge in the second master, and the hiring. hiring of the pauper as a servant, are common to both cases; and (a) Ante,pl.578. those facts distinguish this from most of the cases cited in argu- (b) Anie,pl.582. ment. For these reasons we are of opinion that the service with the second master was not a service under the indenture, and, consequently, that the order of Sessions is right. - Order of Sessions affirmed. VI. Of Apprenticeships under Certificates. denture; first, because there was not a particular assent of the mistress to that service; and, secondly, because the service with A B was not as an apprentice, but as a servant under a contract of certificate-man to a master 585. Rex v. Petham, M. T. 1 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 154. — W. An apprentice S., the father of T. S., being legally settled in P., removed with assigned by a his family into the parish of L., and dwelt there under a certificate from the parish of P.; but never gained any settlement living in another there or elsewhere, after his removal from P. During the time parish, gains a that he and his family dwelt in L. under the certificate, T. S. settlement. was born in L. T. S., not having gained any settlement in his own right, by indenture duly stamped and executed, bearing date the 10th of June 1721, bound himself an apprentice for the term of seven years from the day of the date of the indenture, unto M., blacksmith, then residing in the parish of T. At the time of binding, and also during the whole time, T. S. lived with M. as his apprentice under the indenture, M. being a certificate person from the parish of S. to the parish of T. He dwelt with and served M. in T. as his apprentice under the indenture, from the day of its date to the 30th of August 1723, when M. being then a certificate person as aforesaid, by his But deed-poll by him duly executed, did give, grant, assign, and set over unto J. S., of the parish of L., blacksmith, his right, title, term of years to come, claim, interest, service, and demand whatsoever, which he, the said M., had in or to the said T. S. by virtue of the said indenture; the said M. thereby granting unto the said J. S. his full power and lawful authority for the having, keeping, and enjoying his said apprentice for and during the said term of years then to come and unexpired. T. S. consented to the assignment, and dwelt with and served J. S. as his apprentice under the deed-poll, in the parish of L., from the date of the deed-poll, during the rest of the term of seven years for which he was bound apprentice. J. S., at the time of the execution of the said deed-poll, and during all the time T. S. dwelt with and served him as his apprentice under the deed-poll, was a parishioner legally settled in the parish of L., and not a certificate-person. Upon the expiration of the term of seven years, T. S. went into and resided in D., but never gained any settlement there; and being likely to become chargeable to D., was, together with his wife and child, removed from D. to P. M. never did any act to avoid the certificate. - LEE C. J. There is no doubt but that if the original binding had not been to a certificate-man, the service in L. under the assignment would have gained a settlement. This has been often determined. the present question wholly depends on the construction that shall be put on 12 Ann. c. 18., before which statute, the parish was obliged to receive a certificate-man; and it was found that an irremovable certificate man brought hardships on parishes, by taking apprentices and servants; and therefore it enacts, that such servants or apprentices shall not be settled in such parish wherein the certificate-man lived. It appears very strongly to my apprehension, that as the preamble and purview of the act relate only to the security of the parish where the certificateman lived, it meant only to provide for the ease of that parish for whose benefit it was made. The construction put upon the word "such," in the instances cited by the counsel for the orders, does not come up to this; that construction was agreeable to the intention of those statutes; for in case of certificate-men's gaining settlements, the Court construes acts favourably for gaining settlements; and the relative "such" was construed accordingly. So on the other act of parliament, about gaining a settlement by service, if a person be hired for a year, and serve for a year, such service shall gain a settlement, though it be not an entire service under the very same hiring for a year. There must, however, be a hiring for a year: and if there be also a service for a year, it is sufficient, because it answers the credit given to the man by taking him into a service for a year; and also answers the benefit which the parish has received from his labour for a year. The end of this act seems fully answered, by securing the parish which is obliged to receive the certificateman; and there is no reason to extend it further. Therefore 1 think this man is settled at L., under the assignment. - THE THREE OTHER JUDGES Concurred with the CHIEF JUSTICE in opinion, and said that the grievance which subsisted before the act of 12 Ann. ought to be considered upon this question concerning the construction of it; and that the grievance was the charge brought on parishes obliged to receive persons certificated gains a settle ment, unless his master become a certificate person, before a service of 40 days. 586. Rex v. Clisthydon, H. T. 14 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 161. — M. An apprentice was in 1716 bound by indenture to W., for seven years, in U. and lived there with him about two years: at which time W. went into B., and carried his apprentice with him; where he lived with W. about two or three years. Then his master put him to live with one T. B. in T; where he lived about three months, and then returned to his master in B., and tarried about one week, when his master ordered him to go and live with one P. in B; and there he continued to live about the space of three months at which time W. died; but the term was not then expired. He never lived under the indenture with any person after W.'s death. P. came into B. with a certificate from O. St. M., dated 8 April 1724, and there lived under the said certificate. Two justices removed M. from C. to B., but the Sessions being of opinion that he had not gained a settlement by being with P., - The objection quashed the order, and stated the above case. was, That the master was not a certificate-man during any time of the apprenticeship; and his being so afterwards was immaterial. The rule was made absolute, without defence. 587. Rex v. Bishopside, T. T. 28 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 381.-J., being settled in M., went from thence, by a certificate, to R., in the township of B., where he resided for some years; afterwards, about 18 years before the removal, he purchased a freehold house, for the sum of 107., in the township of D.; after which he left B., and went to inhabit in D.; and inhabited his said house in February 1744. T., the pauper, was bound to him as an apprentice, by an indenture, for the term of seven years; T. performed his service under the indenture with his said master; who, all the time, inhabited in his said house in the township of D. And THE COURT was of opinion, that the pauper gained a settlement in D.; for that the statutes of 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11. and 12 A. c. 18. do not extend to a third parish. An apprentice bound to a eertificate-man in one parish, after another, gains a Rep. 231. S.P. post, pl. 682. 1 Str. 265. 1 Sess. Cases. 143. |