« PreviousContinue »
to serve from third November, 1774, for seven years: he entered accordingly into the apprenticeship, and served and resided with his master in Alfriston until ninth July, 1781 : from that time until twenty-first September following, he served aud reaided, by direction of his master, in a shop hired by his master, in the parish of Brighton. He then returned to, aud continued to serve and reside with his master in Alfrislon until twentysecond October following, when he was sent by his master to his master's father in the parish of West Grinslard, to servo out his apprenticeship, where he resided until third November following, when his apprenticeship expired.—By lord Kenyony Ch.J. It is my wish, that where a point has been once considered as settled, it should not again be brought into dispute. With regard to the present question there seems to be some contradiction in the cases; but the modern authorities are almost all uniform, that the forty days service need not be successive, but that residences at different times may be coupled together, and that the party is settled where the last day's service is, provided there be forty days service in the whole iu that place. \Vith these decisions,therefore, I acquiesce,because these subjects should not remain in doubt. Ashlmrst J. If a rule be once established, it should be adhered to, unless it be glaringly absurd. Now according to all the modern authorities, it is not necessary that the forty days residence should be successive, but they may be coupled together, so as to make forty days in the whole, and the settlement is 1'ned where the servant sleeps the. last night, if there be a residence of forty days in that parish in thewhole. Bulter and Grose,Justices,were of the same opinion. Order of sessions confirming the order of removal to Brighton, quashed. 5 Term Rep. 188.
And an apprentice gains a settlement where he serves the last forty days, although the master has no settlement in the parish ; for the settlement in this case does nut depend on the settlement of the master: thus iu St. Bride's v. St. Saviour'f7 Hil, 4 Ann. B was bound apprentice for four years to J S, and lived out the four years at St. Bride's - with him. J S was only a lodger, and had no settlement there. The Court held theapprentice to be well settled in St. Bride's, for he was not a person removable; nor docs his settlement depend on his master, as that of a wife on her husband ; but he gains a settlement for himself by forty days inhabitation. 2 Salk. 533.
So in Walbourn v. All Saints, Tr. 9 June, the single question as to this order was, Whether if a man be bound an ap. prentice where the master had a settlement, and his master and he remove, and he serve five years of his time in the parish where his master had no settlement, the apprentice shall gain a settlement where he was bound and served two years, or where he served the last five years? Pose//, J. It matters not whether the master had any settlement or no; tfte apprentice Villi certainly have a settlement iu the parish wbera he served fte last five years. If a man have a settlement,and a person bo) bound his apprentice, and lire with him forty days, that give* tie apprentice a settlement; and if the master remote, and h»«e no settlement in the last parish where he serves his master forty days, and his svrvice is ended, thatf;ains him a settlement in that last parish... Posh J. This is a settled pointtand there is a case much stronger than 1 his : as if a man that is a !od»tT take a servant who serves him a ycar,'that gives the servant a settlement in that parish, though the master had none himself. Fuleg 150. 'The same point was also determined in 'Stoke Fleming v. Potr.rov. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 564, and in * an Aoonymf us case.' 1 Sese.Cas. 279.
And the settlement bv apprenticeship can only be gained by P biadutg and inhabiting, and not by binding and serving, and" tfceapprentice cannot be deemed to inhabit but only where he l*d»«. St. John the Baptist v. St. James Bishop Carlin^t, 5 Ld. Ram. 1371. 1 Slran*c, 594. K. v. St. Peter'* on tht HiH, 2 Bott, ConsVsed. 565.
Thus in the K. v. St. Olave's Jc-ary, an apprentice wa« ocond to a cooler, who kept a ntall in one parish, lay in ano. fher, and the boy ina third; the sessions adjudged the settles went where the stall was, because the service was there. But by Parser Ch. J. The cobler is not an inhabitant by virtito of his stall; heis not such a resiant as may be summoned to attend thecourt leet; for if a house stand in two leets, " the "owner is only resiant in that where his bed stands." It hi tree, that a man may be charred to many parochial contributions, though he is not actually inhabiting the parish ; but ,4iuran cannot gain a settlement without being an inhabitant." T!>a ci-e is not like that of a servant hired to a sojourner, for » sojourner is an inhabitant. A porter plying at the corner of ameer, might as well give an apprentice a settlement in the. psrisi where he plies. It docs not appear to me that the pauper can gain a settlement in either of these three parishes *. 1 Stnage, 51. 2 Bott, Const'* cd. 561.
So in St. Mary Coleehurch v. Ruddiffe, Tr. 3 Geo. 1. toe pauper was bound appreuticeto a seafaring man. and scrv. ti him for a quarter of a year at his house in St. Mary Cote. ekwri, in the day time; but lay every night on board hit master'* ship in the parish of Ruddiffe. Tin: M-.«sions conceivsettiement to be where the service was, removed him
• Upon this case it is to he observed, that the only question before flie court was, whether tte hov had gained a irttlcn,ent in the parish la which he had been removed, by his service there? .And although tte court is reported to have said, that " it did not appear that the lalire had gained a settlement in either of the three p;s- if* jet, as that Mis uot the particular point before them, aod b been adjudged in fitlMeipic.t Imscs, particularly/Ae A. V. JSur'rudslvcl;, and the A. v. Colleton, that " mi apprentice gains a "settlement in the jdacv. vtl.ere tie lies," thiscau oui» be rc^-itilej a« a casual dictum.
ioSt.MaryColechurch. But by Tuk Court. The words of the statute arc, < If any person shall be bound an apprentiro and inhabitant of any parish.' Thequestion therefore is, Whether the pauper was an inhabitant of the parish of St. Mary Colechurch? for this speciesof settlement arises from inhabitancy; now a man can only be said to inhabit the place in which he lies, or where' he lodges. But in this case there is certainly no inhabitants. Parka' Ch. J. J t is only stated in the case, that he lodged on board the ship; but if it had appeared that he went on board the shipto watch, and do service on board for his master, as to take care that the goods were not embezzled, that would make a .settlement; and to this opirion Pratt 3. assented. Order quashed. 2 Bntt, Consfs ed. 503.
But in the K. v. Burton Jiradstock, Ea. 5 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound apprentice to a master at Bridport, then owner of the ship, and the apprentice went on board the said ship, and there served the whole of his apprenticeship. The said ship, during all the time of the same apprenticeship, was employed in a coasting-trade from Bridport Harbour in the parish of Burton Bradstock, to many other ports: and during all that time, the said harbour was, and was considered by the captain and sailors of the ship as the proper home of tho ship, and where she returned at the end of every voyage, and always took her departure from in the several voyages that sh« made. During the last part of the apprenticeship, being moro than forty days, the pauper resided, lodged, and served his master, as his apprentice, on board the said ship, and to take care thereof and of his master's goods therein, it being his business as apprentice, to take care of and secure the goods on board the said ship, and to prevent their being stolen or embezzled. By lord Mansfield. Lying in a parish is the same wheiher it be on board a ship, or on land. Casual residences, or accidental inhabitances, are out of the present case. This harbour or bason is stated to be the proper home of the ship ; and to be within the parish of Burton Bradstock; and the service was bona fide, without any pretence or collusion, performed in that parish. Therefore there seems to be no material difference between this case and the ordinary cases of gaining settlements in parishes by apprenticeship. Willet 3. Tho statute 3 & 4 Will. Sf Mar. c. 11. *. 8. enacts, « That if any person shall be bound an apprentice by indenture,and inhabit in any town or parish, such binding and inhabitation shall le adjudged a good settlement." So that an apprentice by indenture inhabiting in a parish gains a settlement therein. Now here the harbour is stated to bo the proper home of th« ship, and considered as such: and it is expressly stated to bo within the parish of Burton Bradstock. Therefore this case is within the common case, as it appears to me. 'If the apprcn'tice had Iain in a house at laud within this parish, it had been 'no question : the apprentice had then been undoubtedly settled 'there; though the master bad lived in another parish.' And here Burton Bradstoek had as much bcneGt from the apprentice's labour, as if he had lain there by night in a cot upon land. Therefore the apprentice's settlement is clearly in Burton Braditork.—Yatex J. concurred, lie said, that mere watchinz on board a ship was not a residence sufficient to gain a settlement. Nor will a vessel, in transitu, accidentally stopping at a port to repair a leak, or take in water, or upon any such casual occasion, gain a settlement to the sailors on board, but this was the proper home of the ship. A casual inhabitancy only to watch a ship (which 1 should think will not gain a settlement) is very different from an apprenticeship served on board it at its proper home. Harrow's Sett. Catety 531.
Soin the K. v. Topsham, Tr. Ter. 46 Geo. 3, the pauper was removed, from Topsham to Poole, and the sessions quashed the order of removal subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: "The pauper was bound by indenture apprentice as a mariner to a person of Topsham, a ship owner and coal merchant: he terved for three year*, made several voyages, and returned to Topsham, residing there in the in. fervals between the voyages, sometimes for two months: his last voyage was on board the Reward of Topsham, which sailed first to Shields and from thence to Poole, with a cargo of coals: the pauper remained at Poole upwards of forty days, and slept every night during that time on board the said vessel, asit lay along side the quay: he knew whilst he was there his Batter was become a bankrupt and gone from Topsham ; in consequcace thereof be applied to the ship's agent for money to return to Topsham, which was given to him; on his arrival at 'i . he resided with his uncle, not being able to tind bis Baiter, whom he had never afterwards seen or served: the indentures were offered to be given up by one of the assignees, bat were not in fact given up until alter they had expired. It *iiCuMixntD in support of the order Oj sessions, 1st. That the residence of the apprentice at Pook was merely casna', and accidental, the vessel in which be served being then in transitu and its proper home being at 'Topsham. 2dly, That atauy r.jte the apprentice regained a settlement in Topiham, whither he retamed, after be had left Poole, by the assistance of his master's agent, and served out the remainder of his time there. Hut The Cocrt were clearly of opinion against (he parish of St. James in Potle upon both points: rinur; they all agreed that the residonco of the apprentice on board his master's ship in PouL was not a casual or accidental resilience; but that he was then in the actual employ and service of his master in liis trade and busiDess, which in its nature required a shifting residence ; and that as it was clear that an apprentice might gain a settlement by serving auother master in a different parish, a fortiori he gaintd a settlement by serving the original master himself in another parish, where his master's business called him : upon thestcu.SD point, k appeared by the case that the apprentice never return. ed to his master's service in. the parish of Topsham, for his master had absconded before his return, and he went to live ■with his uncle, and it is expressh found that he never saw or served his master afterwards*. Order of sessions quashed. 7 East's Rep. 466.
So in the K. v. Castle/on, Mic. 7 Gto. 3, the pauper was bound to a hatter at Castlcton; he worked, dieted, and lodged ■with his master in Cast Let on for four years and a half; and then married a woman who lived in IlundcrsJirlJ. After which marriage, he worked and dieted all along with his master in Castleton in the day-time, where his master lived, lodged, and carried on his trade; hut the pauper lodged at nights with, his wife, at her father's house in Hundersjieid, until the expiration of the apprenticeship, which was about two years and an half from the time of his marriage. ...The question was, ' Whe
* ther the place where the apprentice lodged at nights, was not
* the legal place of his settlement?' Andit bring agreed by the counsel, and confirmed by lord Mansfield, that 'the place 'where an apprentice lies is the place ol his settlement,' the original order, adjudging the pauper's settlement to be at liundersfitld, was affirmed. Burrow's Sett. Can. 566.
Cani»lrcsid- But a casual residence in a parish for forty days, by reason euce m a|>arith of sickness, does not confer a settlement This was determined
idJictL0" "f in the K- v' Tit(:hfield-> Mic- 4 Ge0- *• Thc Pauper, an apprentice by indenture,inhabited above forty days with his master in Milford; but falling sick, he on account thereof, and vciih the consent of his master, went to his father in Bewley, and there continued forty 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. It was contended that the pauper was settled in Rticltui by inhabiting forty days with his mailer's consent: and that ttie Delivering up of the indentures was not a sufficient discharge of the apprentice without cancelling them— but Tue 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 forty days, shall that gain a settlement there? and there is no difference between the indenture's being given up, audits being cancelleti, they amount to the same thing.—Original order, removiug the paupeT to Milford, affirmed. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 511.
Ilowever, if the apprentice, being sick and disabled, be sent by the master to his parents in another parish, the apprentice by continuing there forty days shall gain a settlement, although he do no service there; for his residence there is with the master's privity and consent, and it is the residence without respect . to the service that confers a settlement.-—Thus in the K. v. Charles, 7'r. 12 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound apprentice to a person of Knowttone, in respect of an estate which he rented
* See the A", v. Bermbs in the marsh, iufra.