protected by the certificate. This comes, then, directly within the (a) Post, pl. 744. principle of Rex v. Hampton (a); where it was holden that an apprentice to the widow of a certificated man, could not gain a settlement in the certificated parish after the husband's death. If this question had come now to be decided for the first time, I should have been prepared to decide it on the plain words of the stat. of Anne, referring to the stat. 8 & 9 W. 3. c. 30. and 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11., which have been broken in upon by many cases, laying down rules of construction much less plain than the words of the statute itself. The stat. 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11. speaks of two methods only by which any person coming into a parish with a certificate shall by any act whatsoever be adjudged to have procured a legal settlement there; those are by taking a tenement of the yearly value of 10., or by executing some annual office within the parish. Then the stat. 12 Ann. st. 1. c. 18. § 2. enacts, that "if any person shall be "an apprentice bound by indenture, or be a hired servant to any person who came into (which extends to such as came into the "parish with the person certificated) or shall reside in any parish "by means or licence of such certificate," (which includes such persons as come into the parish afterwards, and reside under the protection of the certificate); " and not having afterwards gained a legal settlement there," (which was in allusion to the methods pointed out by the stat. 9 & 10 W. 3. c. 11.) " such apprentice or "servant shall not be adjudged thereby to have a settlement in "such place," &c. The object of the legislature by these acts certainly was to protect the certificated parish from sustaining any new burthen by persons gaining settlements there who were residing there upon the faith of these certificates, except by one or other of the methods pointed out. I am, therefore, decidedly against extending the construction of the statutes further than it has been carried. Now, who can be considered as a person residing by means or licence of a certificate, if the son of a certificated man continuing to live with his father's widow in the certificated parish is not such a person? If, as in the Hampton case, the widow of a certificated man were privileged to continue in the parish under the certificate after his death, as part of his family; so must his son, by the same rule, who continued part of the same family. There was no emancipation in this case to distinguish it from the other: but it comes expressly within the principle of the Hampton case, and, what is more material, it comes directly within the meaning of the statute of Anne. - GROSE J. A person is within the words of the statute of Anne who is serving another residing in any parish by means or licence of a certificate. Now here, R. S., the son, either lived there as part of his father's or his mother's family during all the time and it is not denied that both the father in his lifetime and the mother after his death' were residing in S. under the certificate. There was no emancipation of the son, no taking of another house for himself, nor any (a) Post, pl.762. thing of the sort which occurred in Rex v. Heath (a); and there is no pretence for saying that his going out for a few weeks at harvest time would operate as an emancipation. We ought to be careful not to create more doubts by refining away the meaning of the statutes and prior decisions upon the subject.-LAWRENCE J. declared himself of the same opinion. LE BLANC J. We are now called upon to put a construction upon the statute 12 Anne; and as, in the only case which turned on that branch of the statute, Rex v. Hampton, it was holden that the widow after the husband's death was still protected by the certificate as part of his family, and therefore that her apprentice serving her could not thereby gain a settlement in the certificated parish; so neither can the servant to the son continuing part of the same family gain a settlement there. Both orders quashed. VII. Evidence of Apprenticeship. The Sessions may receive parol evidence of an apprenticeship, in order to draw their 598. Rex v. East Knoyle, T. T. 13 & 14 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 151. The Sessions-order thus stated the case. And it appears to this Court, upon the evidence now given, that the said J. B. was bound an apprentice, by indentures, to one W. W., of the parish of E. K. aforesaid, cordwainer (which is above 50 miles from London); and that he served three years at E. K. aforesaid under conclusion of the said apprenticeship; at which time the said W. W., the master, the fact that the died; and that the sum of 51. (being the full consideration-money) binding was by was paid by his father with the said apprentice for such his bind- indenture. ing: but the indentures of apprenticeship were not produced; neither did it appear to this Court, whether the duty of 6d. in the pound directed to be paid by the statute 8 Anne, c. 9. was paid, or whether the said indentures were stamped, as the said act requires. OBJECTION. It appears that the justices have admitted and gone upon evidence which was not legal. They have admitted parol evidence of an indenture, which they state not to have been produced, and have not given any reason why it was not produced; nor did it appear to them that the duty was paid, or whether the indentures were stamped according to 8 Anne, c. 9. But PAGE and CHAPPLE Js. (the only two judges in Court), over-ruled the objection, and refused to make a rule to show cause. For it is stated, that it appeared to them that he was bound an apprentice, &c., and it is not necessary that this evidence should appear to us. Perhaps the indenture was lost: and in that case could the justices receive no other evidence of the binding? And as to the duty and the stamp, they do not say the duty was not paid, or that the indenture was not stamped. indenture. See the case of Bedford, ante, 599. Rex v. Holbeck, M. T. 16 G. 2. Burr. S. C. 139. The The binding of pauper was born in G., then the place of his father's settlement; an apprentice at the age of nine he was put an apprentice by the churchwardens can only be and overseers of the poor of G. to S. G., of the same place, by in- proved by the denture, to serve till he attained the full age of 24 years; and the indenture being produced, the same appears not to be upon stamped paper. LEE C. J. I think the indenture cannot be available in evidence in any Court, by the express words of the act of 5 W. & M. c. 21. s. 11. which stands unrepealed by any of the subsequent acts. And yet this indenture was necessary evidence to make out the proof of a binding by indenture; for that binding could be no otherwise proved than by the indenture. But this indenture being unstamped, was not admissible as a proof of the thing; it could not be given in evidence, or admitted to be available. And yet it must be taken, upon the state of this case, that the indenture, though unstamped, was received in evidence by the Sessions. Therefore, the order of the two justices made for removing the paupers to G., the pauper's original settlement, ought to be Parol evidence received of an A, married at the time of his being a soldier, when, being examined agreeably to the mutiny-act, he deposed, that he had gone affirmed, and the order of Sessions quashed.➡ THE THREE OTHER JUDGES Concurred. 1 600. Rex v. St. Helen's, T. T. 22 & 23 G. 2. Burr. S.C. 735. — The order of Sessions, among other facts, stated, that Hudson gave evidence, that Joseph Hutt, her son, in 1733, was bound apprentice to his grandfather, by indenture, for seven years; that the indenture was delivered into the custody of the grandfather, as she had been informed by her son; that she never saw the indenture herself, and knew nothing of it, but from the information of her son that it was reputed in the family that her son was his apprentice; that he was so described in the grandfather's will: that it further appeared upon evidence, that Joseph Hutt served his grandfather five years in St. H., under the indenture; that William Hutt, the grandfather, found and provided for him, during the five years, in clothes and necessaries; that the grandfather died in the year 1738, leaving Martha Hutt, his widow and executrix, and John Hutt, his son; that B., by the order of the parish of St. S., in December 1748, applied to John Hutt, who then lived with his mother at A., in the house where the grandfather died, and where his goods and effects were, to know whether he had in his custody any indenture of apprenticeship between William and Joseph Hutt; that John Hutt told him he could not find it; that B. did not inquire who was the executor or representative of the grandfather; nor did it appear that he made any other application or search to discover and find out the indenture; nor was any evidence given that said indenture was lost, save as aforesaid: and the inden ture was not produced in evidence. That it further appeared upon the evidence of John Hutt, an inhabitant and parishioner of St. H., that he was employed by his father, William Hutt, to draw an indenture of apprenticeship between his said father and the said Joseph Hutt; that he did, upon a common sheet of paper which was not stamped, copy the form of an indenture from an old one, only altering the names; that he and one G. were witnesses to the said indenture; but that it was not stamped; that Joseph Hutt, upon the death of William Hutt in 1738, refused to serve Martha, the widow and executrix of the said William Hutt, as an ap prentice, on account of the said paper-writing not being stamped. Then no other evidence was given of Joseph Hutt living an apprentice to the grandfather, nor was any other settlement proved to be gained by Joseph Hutt than as aforesaid. One of the objections to this order was, that there is only parol evidence of an indenture, which ought itself to have been produced. -THE WHOLE COURT were clearly of opinion, that there was not enough stated to show that there was a binding within the act. 601. Rex v. St. Michael's, Bath, H. T. 13 G. 3. MSS. — Two justices removed Mary Taylor, and her infant child, from the parish of St. P. to St. M. The Sessions confirmed the order, and state the following case:-That it appears by the oath of Mary Taylor, one of the paupers, that she was married about four years ago at B. to one Richard Taylor, then a corporal of foot: that he stayed there with her only about three quarters of a year, and then left her that she has heard her husband declare, that he was born about 26 years ago at C.: that when he was 14 years of age he served an apprenticeship to one Morley, whose christian name was Thomas, as she believed, who lived in St. M.., and served the posed before the said Thomas Morley about four years: that he then run away and apprentice to B, and lived with him five years.~ His wife de from 483 prove an apprenticeship. See 5 T.R.704. listed for a soldier; went to Ireland, came from thence to B., and Sessions, that married her at St. P.'s church at B.: that she does not know what she had heard is become of her said husband, having never seen or heard of him him speak to the since that it appeared, that the examination of the said Richard same purpose. This deposition Taylor was taken in writing shortly after his said marriage, and eviagreeably to the mutiny-act; which writing was produced, and is dence of his in these words: "Town of B., to wit. The examination of wife, were held "Richard Taylor on this act saith, that he was born in the parish to be sufficient "of C.; there he resided about six years; from thence went to evidence to "school to M., in said county, above four years; from thence re"turned home to his mother until about the age of 14 years; "whence he went apprentice to James Morley, as a plasterer, "at St. M. in Bath, with whom he lived five years and a half; "after which he enlisted into the 63d regiment, where he now re"mains. Taken before us the 12th October 1768."- It farther appeared by the evidence of Robert Morley, that there is not at present a person of the name of James Morley, a plasterer, in St. M.; but that one James Morley, a plasterer, in St. M., died there about eight years ago: that the said Robert worked with the said James as a journeyman until his death, but sometimes was absent three quarters of a year together: that he was perfectly acquainted with said James Morley, and has often heard him say that he never would take an apprentice, for he was a single man, and only a lodger himself: and said Robert says, to the best of his knowledge, that said James Morley never had an apprentice in his life: that John Morley, brother of said James, who is a plasterer, never had an apprentice, to the best of his knowledge, and has divers times given, in the hearing of the said Robert, for reason, that being all his life a single man and a lodger, he never would take an apprentice: that there appeared no evidence that the said Richard Taylor had been bound an apprentice, other than is contained in his aforesaid examination and declaration given in evidence by his wife; neither did it appear, that said Richard Taylor had gained any settlement in said parish of St. M.'s other than as aforesaid.-LORD MANSFIELD: Here the party for quashing the Session-order apply to do so, because the justices have drawn a wrong conclusion from the evidence. I do not think they have drawn a wrong conclusion. The presumption from a man serving four years as an apprentice is, that he was bound. — ASTON J. In the case of St. H. it was found that there was no indenture, and it did not appear that any inquiry was made after an indenture, therefore the Court had no ground to presume a binding. Here the man is run away, and he swore that he was an apprentice; the question is, Whether the Court will imply that there was an indenture? There is a very reasonable presumption of a binding, and every thing is to be presumed in favour of a settlement.. WILLES J. We are not to presume that the apprenticeship was by parole; the presumption is the contrary way. In the King v. Mewland, which was alluded to, it was stated to be an apprenticeship by parole, for quashing the order.-ASHHURST J. of the same opinion. Rule discharged. 602. Rex v. Middlezoy, T. T. 27 G.3. 2 T. R. 41.- The paupers, M., S. his wife, and C. their child, were removed from M. to S. The Sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this The appellants having proved Court on the following case: - a An indenture of apprenticeship coming out of opposite party, the hands of the after notice to produce it, must prima facie be taken to be duly executed, and must be received in evidence the execution, hiring and service of the pauper for a year in the parish of M., the respondents proposed to show that a settlement could not be gained thereby, by reason of subsisting indentures of the pauper's apprenticeship to one W. of S., at the time of such hiring and service. They had given a notice to the appellants of the subwithout proof of stance, and to the effect following, viz. to produce, at the trial of the appeal, a certain indenture of apprenticeship, bearing date on or about the 10th day of January 1784, where M., the pauper, was put and placed apprentice to W.; and an indenture to that purport was accordingly produced in Court by the appellants, with proper seals and signatures, but no subscribing witness thereto; and no evidence was adduced by the respondents to prove the sealing and delivery thereof; whereupon it was con tended, on the part of the appellants, that the same could not be given in evidence without proving the execution thereof; to which it was answered, that, coming from the hands of the appellants, it ought to be received in evidence against the party producing it, without proof of the execution. The Court, being of opinion that proof ought to be given of the due execution of the said indenture, refused to admit the same in evidence without such proof. The respondents then produced the counterpart of the said supposed indenture, which they proved to be duly executed, and tendered the same in evidence: but the Court also refused to admit the said counterpart. The pauper served the said W., in the parish of S., for more than two years subsequent to the date of the said supposed indentures of apprenticeship; and afterwards, before the term thereof expired, without any consent of the said W., served for a year as aforesaid, in the parish of M., under a hiring to one S. W.-ASHHURST J. The Sessions have done wrong in refusing to admit this evidence, because, as the indentures of apprenticeship came out of the hands of the appellants, they were concluded from saying they were not properly executed; therefore the indentures ought to have been received, and, conseqently, the order of Sessions must be quashed. BULLER J. The only question, as a general one, in this case is, Whether the indentures of apprenticeship should have been received in evidence? I do not go the whole length of saying, that the production of them by the appellants was conclusive against them, but undoubtedly they ought to have been received. In civil actions, where a plaintiff wishes to give in evidence a deed in the defendant's custody, he gives the defendant notice to produce it; and the deed, when produced, must prima facie be taken to be duly executed, because the plaintiff, not knowing who are the subscribing witnesses, cannot come prepared at the trial to prove the execution of the deed. Therefore an instrument coming out of the hands of the opposite party, must be taken to be proved. If, indeed, there be any fraud in the case, the other party will not be precluded from impeaching it. But in this particular case it appears, that if the appellants had not produced the indentures at all, the counterpart must have been admitted in evidence, which would have been sufficient. The next question is, Whether this case should be sent down to the Sessions to be restated? Now, strictly speaking, the justices at the Sessions ought to find facts, and not the evidence of those facts. But we all know, that of late years this Court has not been very astute in finding out trivial objections in the manner of stating Sessions-cases, where enough appears to warrant the Court to |