dentures, with the consent of two justices, testified under their hands, to assign any such apprentice for the residue of the term in such indenture; provided the person to whom the apprentice is to be assigned,shall by indorsement, without stamps, on the counterpart of such indenture; or by writing under his hand, stamped as parish indentures, stating the indenture and the indorsement, and consent aforesaid, declare his acceptance of such apprentice, and acknowledge himself, his executors and administrators, to be bound by the covenants in the said indenture on the part of the master to be performed and in such case the apprentice shall be deemed to be the apprentice of such subsequent master; and so from time to time as often as it shall be necessary or convenient for such subsequent master to part with such apprentice; and all justices shall have the like power, in the cases last mentioned, with respect as well to the subsequent masters, as to the apprentices, as such justices shall then have by any law for regulation of parish apprentices." s. 7, 9, 10. Under these statutes the churchwardens and overseers are not restrained to bind poor children to inhabitants of the same parish, but they may, under the words in the 43 Eliz. c. 2, which authorize them to bind such children where they shall sce convenient, in their discretion, bind them to persons residing in another parish, as well as in their own, the master consenting; for if any objection could be supported against such binding, on account of the pauper's being bound out of the parish, it would be productive of great inconvenience; for many children, living in parishes where there is no manufacture, would thereby be deprived of an opportunity of being instructed in beneficial trades, and be confined to the stations of day-labourers. K. v. St. Margaret, Lincoln, Burrows' Settl. Cases 728. K. v. St. Nicholas, in Nottingham, 2 Term Reports 730. And it is now clearly settled, that a person occupying lands in a parish, but living out of it, may be compelled to. receive a parish apprentice. For in the case of The King v. John Clap, Hil. Ter. 29 Geo. 3. The parish officers of Sowton, Devon, having with the assent of two justices for that county county, whose names are subscribed to the consent on or about the by indenture bearing dute day of until the said AP should attain his age of twenty-one years. Now be it remembered, that the said FM, by and with the consent, &c. [as before]. apprenticed Sarah Hellier, a poor child of Sowton, to the defendant, according to the statute; he appealed to the sessions at Exeter, where the order was confirmed, subject to the opinion of the court of King's Bench, on the following case: "The apprentice was bound to the appellant, who resided in "the parish of Pinhoe, on an estate which he rented and oċcupied in the parish of Souton, of the value of 201. per ann. which was divided by the highway from the appellant's house, "in which he lived. There was no house on the estate of "which the appellant was the occupier. The indenture, to"gether with the apprentice, was tendered to the appellant in "the parish of Sowton, in the highway adjoining to the said estate, lying in the parish of Sowton." BY THE COURT ; The general object of the act was to compel all those who had any property in the parish to contribute their due proportion towards the maintenance of the poor; and the receiving appren tices is one mode of contributing to their general relief: in constraing the words of the statute, there is no reason for confining the power of binding on the inhabitants of the parish; They ought to be extended to persons occupying lands in the parish, though residing out of it. * 3 Term Reports 107.See also Rex v. Tunstead and Happing, infra. แ So, where several persons hold land in partnership, some of whom actually reside on and occupy it, and others residé at a Gitance in another parish, the latter as well as the former are and to take parish apprentices. This was decided in the case the King v. Barwick, M. 37 Geo. III. which was as follows: A poor child was put out as an apprentice by the overseers of the township of Hunslet to John Barwick, a surgeon and apothecary resident in Leeds, and the indenture was duly allow upon appeal the sessions confirmed the appointment and denture, subject to the opinion of the court on the following Case: The appellant was a partner with eleven other persons in a manufactory of earthen-ware, in the township of Hunslet; two of the partners were resident within the township, and had each received an apprentice, bound and indentured to them by the overseers of Hunslet, without any objection: the apprentice was appointed and tendered to the appellant to *And thongh it has been said, that if this construction be put upon the the party may be doubly charged, in the parish in which he lives, in of his inhabitancy; and in that in which he has lands, in respect of his pation of them; yet, if he find himself aggrieved he may appeal to the ; and the court of King's Bench will take it for granted, that the jusdo what is right. They are to adapt the charge to the size of the properich the person charged possesses; and these are incidental charges, which him in respect of that property. The ground of decision here is, that se of the modes provided for the maintenance of the poor in this stawhich imposes the duty in respect of the property. Per ld. Kenyon s.m the same case. VOL. I. be his apprentice individually; the appellant was not resident in Hunslet but at Leeds, the adjoining township; the partner. ship was rated for buildings and land in Hunslet, to the amount of 2701. a year, of which 231. a year was the appellant's share; the justices were of opinion that the appellant was in every respect a proper person to take an apprentice i bound by law to take one;" THE QUESTION was, therefore whether under these circumstances the appellant was liabl to have such apprentice appointed and tendered to him being so resident, and a partner as aforesaid, by the overseer of the township of Hunslet? By Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. Paris apprentices are to be bound to masters in respect of thei inhabitaucy or occupation of lands within the parish: this i one of the modes pointed out by the statute 43 Eliz. of re lieving the poor, and every person ought to bear this burde in respect of his property; here the appellant occupies land in the parish to the amount of 231. per annum, that bein his aliquot part of the whole; and in respect of that occup tion he is bound, according to the case of the King v. Clapy to take the apprentice. It has been taken for granted the argument of this case, that the appellant is not an inh bitant, but the contrary is most clear, according to the co struction put on the stat. 22 Hen. VIII. c. 5, which makes t inhabitants of counties liable to the repair of bridges. Lo Coke, 2 Inst. 702, in his comment on that statute, says, th persons having lands in their own possession, though dwelli in a foreign county, are inhabitants; and that doctrine never been doubted from that time to the present. On t authority of the King v. Clapp, this order must be affirm Lawrence, J. the argument against the order proceeds on t ground, that there was an occupation of the partnership-la and houses, by two of the partners, to the exclusion of all rest: but that is not so, for each of the others may go and res there if he please. Per Cur, order of sessions confirmed. 77 Rep. 33. And incorporeal property,such as tithes makes the holder li to take a parish apprent.ce: and the usage of a partic district cannot vary the general law; for where it was obje to the taking of a parish apprentice bound out in respect of sheaf or great tithes of the parish, that no globe or house b was appropriated to the said tithes, which were rated at per annum, and that in respect of the said tithes no apprez had heretofore been bound, but that the custom of binding in parish had been ugou lands of 107. per annum, and upw: THE COURT held that,as to the usage of not laying this bur upon incorporeal property the statute makes no distinctio to the kinds of property; that tithes are a property, m to be charged by the statute, and from the nature thereot owner of great tithes has at least an equal opportunit fading employment for an apprentice, with a merchant, which was Minchamp's case; and that the usage of a particular district cannot affect the construction of any act of parliament, which must be one and the same in all places. Rex v. Saltren, Ea. Ter. 24 Geo. 3. Cald. Cas. 444. And by 20 Geo. 3. c. 36. The persons to whom any poor chil'dren shall be appointed to be bound apprentices, in pursuance of any act made for the relief of the poor in any particular in'corporated hundreds or districts, shall receive and provide for 'such children, according to the indentures to be executed by 'the directors and acting guardians of the poor for such hun'dreds, for the binding of such poor children, in like manner as persons are now obliged to receive and provide for poor chil 'dren appointed to be bound apprentices by churchwardens and overseers, with the assent of two justices, and also execute the counter part of such indenture; and if any person shall refuse to receive and provide for such poor child, or to execute the counterpart of the indenture,such person,upon proof thereof, by the oath of one of the directors or guardians, or some credi 'ble witness, before two justices, shall forfeit to the directors and guardians, or to their treasurer or appointee, to be appli ed to the relief of the poor, 107. to be levied by distress and 'sale, by warrant of such justices, saving to the party his ap. peal to the next general or quarter session, whose order therein 'shall be final.' s. 1. 'But nothing in this act shall compel any person to take any 'such poor child apprentice, unless such person shall be an inhabitant and occupier of lands in the parish to which such 'child belongs.'s. 2. And by the several powers and provisions in the foregoing act of 20 Geo. 3. c. 36, shall extend to poor children bound apprentices under the authority of any acts passed since the said act, in the same maaner as if such act had passed prior to the said act by 42 Geo. 3. c. 46. s. S. It has been decided upon the construction of the words, an inhabitant and occupier, in the exception, contained in 20 Geo. 3. that it is not necessary that the master should actually reside in the parish; and that if he be only an occupier there, it is suf ficient. For in the case of The K. v. The Directors and Guardians of the Poor within the Hundreds of Tunstead and Happing, in Norfolk, H. T. 30 Geo. 3, these directors, under 25 Geo. 3. c. 27, with the consent of two justices bound a poor male child belonging to one of the "hundreds apprentice to Joseph Reynolds, who was an occupier of lands, but not an inhabitant within the hundreds. Reynolds appealed to the sessions, who were of opinion, that he was not bound to receive the apprentice, because he was not an inhabitant as well as oc. * * A private aut for the above districts, the same as 20 ep. 3. c. 36. cupier; subject however to the opinion of the court of King's Beuch, on a case stating these facts. In support of the order of sessions, it was observed, that the statutes 20 Geo. 3. c. 36. & 25 Geo. 3. c. 27, were made in pari materiâ, and therefore, ought to be taken into consideration together that the meaning of these two statutes, taken together,is that no person shall be bound to receive an apprentice unless he be an inhabitant, as well as occupier in the parish, and the case was endeavoured to be distinguished from that of K. v. Clapp, that being determined on 43 Eliz. c. 2. But by lord Kenyon, This case is not to be distinguished on principle from that of K. v. Clapp. If indeed the legislature had used imperative words, we must have been bound by them; but there are none such in this statute; here great stress has been laid on the proviso in 20 Geo. 3, which has the words "inhabitants and occupiers." Now 43 Eliz. uses the words "inhabitants," which has been held not to be confined to resiants; and lord Coke, (2 Inst. 702.) in his reading on 22 Hen. 8. c. 5, relative to the repairing of bridges by the inhabitants of counties, says that the word inhabitants includes those who occupy lands in the county, though they do not reside there: for some purposes, inhabitants and occupiers are synonymous terms. Where a person derives a benefit from property which he occupies in a parish, he is lia ble to contribute to the ease of it; and in K. v. Clapp, we ob served, that this was one of the modes by which he was to contribute to the ease of his parish. If indeed the legislature had added the word resiants to inhabitants in this act, that would have confined this burden to persons actually residing within the parish.--Order of sessions quashed. 3 Term Reports523. The indenture of a parish apprentice cannot be assented to by the two justices separately, and at different times; but the two justices must act together at the same time, and in the presence of each other, otherwise the indenture is absolutely void: and no settlement can be gained by serving under it: thus where an indenture was separately assented to by two justices of the peace by signing the same, but such two justices did not assent to or sign the same at the same time, or in the presence of cach other; in support of this indenture it was contended, that although it is necessary that wherever the inagistrates are to exercise a judgment upon the subject, it is necessary that they should meet, in order that their act may be the result of their joint opinion, as in making orders of removal, orders of filiation, and appointment of overseers; yet that where the justices act only ministerially, as in the in Where there are different statutes in pari materiâ, though made at different times, or even expired, and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and construed together as one system, and as explanatory of each other, Per Lord Mansfield, in K. v. Loxsilate and others. 1 Burrows Rep. |