the last five years. If a man have a settlement, and a person bo bound his apprentice, and live with him forty days, that gives the apprentice a settlement; and if the master remove, and have no settlement in the last parish where he serves his master forty days, and his service is ended, that gains him a settlement in that last parish... Powis J. This is a settled point: and there is a case much stronger than this as if a man that is a lodger take a servant who serves him a year, 'that gives the ser vant a settlement in that parish, though the master had none himself, Fuley 150. The same point was also determined in Stoke Fleming v. Pomroy, 2 Bott, Const's ed. 564, and in an Anonymous case.' 1 Sess. Cas. 279.

And the settlement by apprenticeship can only be gained by Place of re binding and inhabiting, and not by binding and serving, and vice. the apprentice cannot be deemed to inhabit but only where he lodges. St. John the Baptist v. St. James Bishop Carlings, 2 Ld. Raem. 1371. 1 Strange, 594. K. v. St. Peter's on the Hill, 2 Bott, Const's ed. 565.

Thus in the K. v. St. Olave's Jewry, an apprentice was bound to a cobler, who kept a stall in one parish, lay in ano ther, and the boy in a third; the sessions adjudged the settle. ment where the stall was, because the service was there. But by Parker Ch. J. The cobler is not an inhabitant by virtue of his stall; he is not such a resiant as may be summoned to attend the court lect; for if a house stand in two leets," the "owner is only resiant in that where his bed stands." It is true, that a man may be charged to many parochial contributions, though he is not actually inhabiting the parish; but

a man cannot gain a settlement without being an inhabitant." This case is not like that of a servant hired to a sojourner, for a sojourner is an inhabitant. A porter plying at the corner of a street, might as well give an apprentice a settlement in the parish where he plies. It does not appear to me that the pauper can gain a settlement in either of these three parishes *. 1 Strange, 51. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 561.

So in St. Mary Colechurch v. Radcliffe, Tr. 3 Geo. 1. the pauper was bound apprentice to a seafaring man, and served him for a quarter of a year at his house in St. Mary Cole. church, in the day time; but lay every night on board his master's ship in the parish of Radcliffe. THE SESSIONS Conceiv ing the settlement to be where the service was, removed him

Upon this case it is to be observed, that the only question before the court was, whether the boy had gained a settlement in the parish to which he had been removed, by his service there? And although the court is reported to have said, that " it did not appear that the *apprentice had gained a settlement in either of the three pa"rishes;" yet, as that was not the particular point before them, aud it hath been adjudged in subsequent cases, particularly the K. v. Burten Bradstock, and the K. v. Cas.leton, that "an apprentice gains a "settlement in the place where ne lies," this can only be regarded as a casual dictum.

to St. Mary Colechurch. But by THE COURT. The words of the statute are, If any person shall be bound an apprentice and inhabitant of any parish.' The question therefore is, Whether the pauper was an inhabitant of the parish of St. Mary Colechurch? for this species of settlement arises from inhabitan. cy; 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. Parker Ch. J. It 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 J. assented. Order quashed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 563.

But in the K. v. Burton Bradstock, 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 the ship, and where she returned at the end of every voyage, and always took her departure from in the several voyages that she made. During the last part of the apprenticeship, being more than forty days, the pauper resided, lodged, and served his mas ter, 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 whe ther 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. Willes J. The statute 3 & 4 Will. & Mar. c. 11. s. 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 be 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 be the proper home of the ship, and considered as such and it is expressly stated to be within the parish of Burton Bradstock. Therefore this case is within the common case, as it appears to me. If the apprentice had lain in a house at land within this parish, it had been no question: the apprentice had then been undoubtedly settled there; though the master had lived in another parish.' And

here Burton Bradstock had as much benefit 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 Bradstock-Yates J. concurred. He said, that mere watching 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 I should think will not gain a settlement) is very different from an apprenticeship served on board it at its proper home. Burrow's Sett. Cases,

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 served for three years, made several Toyages, and returned to Topsham, residing there in the intervals 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, as it lay along side the quay: he knew whilst he was there his master was become a bankrupt and gone from Topsham; in consequence thereof he applied to the ship's agent for money to return to Topsham, which was given to him; on his arrival at Topsham, he resided with his uncle, not being able to find bis master, whom he had never afterwards seen or served: the indentures were offered to be given up by one of the assignees, but were not in fact given up until after they had expired. Ir WAS CONTENDED in support of the order of sessions, 1st. That the residence of the apprentice at Poolt was merely casual, and accidental, the vessel in which he served being then in transitu and its proper home being at Topsham. 2dly, That at any rate the apprentice regained a settlement in Topsham, whither he returned, after he had left Poole, by the assistance of his master's agent, and served out the remainder of his time there. BUT THE COURT were clearly of opinion against the parish of St. James in Poole проп both points: FIRST; they all agreed that the residence of the apprentice on board his master's ship in Poole was not a casual or accidental residence; but that he was then in the actual employ and service of his master in his trade and business, which in its nature required a shifting residence ; and that as it was clear that an apprentice might gain a settlement by serving another master in a different parish, a fortiori he gain. ed a settlement by serving the original master himself in another parish, where his master's business called him : upon the SECOND point, it 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 expressly found that he never saw or served his master afterwards*. Order of sessions quashed. 7 East's Rep. 466.

So in the K. v. Castleton, Mic. 7 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound to a hatter at Castleton; he worked, dicted, and lodged with his master in Castleton for four years and a half; and then married a woman who lived in Hundersfield. 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; but the pauper lodged at nights with his wife, at her father's house in Hundersfield, vutil the expira tion of the apprenticeship, which was about two years and an half from the time of his marriage.---The question was, Whether the place where the apprentice lodged at nights, was not 'the legal place of his settlement?' And it being agreed by the counsel, and confirmed by lord Mansfield, that the place where an apprentice lies is the place of his settlement,' the original order, adjudging the pauper's settlement to be at Hundersfield, was aflirmed. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 566.

Casual resid. But a casual residence in a parish for forty days, by reason cuce in a parish of sickness, does not confer a settlement.--. This was determined by reason of in the K. v. Titchfield, Mic. 4 Geo. 3. The pauper, an apsickness. prentice by indenture,inhabited above forty days with his master in Milford; but falling sick, he on account thereof, and with 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 Bewley by inhabiting forty days with his master's consent: and that the delivering up of the indentures was not a sufficient discharge of the apprentice without cancelling them. But THE 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, and its being cancelled, they amount to the same thing.---Original order, removing the pauper 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 mas ter's privity and consent, and it is the residence without respect to the service that confers a settlement.---Thus in the K. v. Charles, Tr. 12 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound apprentice to a person of Knowstone, in respect of an estate which he rented

* See the K. v. Barmby in the marsh, infra.

there: his landlord had covenanted, that if a second apprentice was bound for that estate, which second apprentice the paper was, that he and his representatives would discharge him from any expence that he might thereby incur; the pan. per being so bound, the landlord's widow and representative, on the master's application, took the boy; received the parish. money with him,carried him home with her, and afterwards removed to the parish of Charles, where the boy resided with her about three years, and then became a cripple by losing both his feet. She thereupon returned him to his master, who received him, upon her promise to pay him all the expence he should be at in taking care of the pauper; and then he put the paper to live with his (the pauper's) grandmother in Knowstone, at 1s. 6d. per week, where he resided above forty days, and then was discharged by the sessions from his apprenticeship. It was contended, that this was not such a residence of the apprentice in Knowstone as could gain him a settlement; that it was only a casual, accidental, temporary residence, and like residing in an hospital for cure; that actual service is necessary, in order to an apprentice gaining a settlement; and that therefore this apprentice's legal settlement was in Charles, where he performed the service of his apprenticeship during the space of three years; and not in Knowstone, where he lay ill as a cripple, and was totally incapable of performing any service at all. But by THE COURT. The performance of actual service is not the thing material : it is the residence, the inhabitancy of an apprentice in a town or parish for forty days, if the master be privy and consenting to it, that gains a settlement; and this residence here stated, cannot be deemed a casual residence, and therefore is not to be compared to the cases under that head: the boy was bound to a master in Knowstone; resided about three years in the parish of Charles; then became a cripple; was sent back to the first master at Knowstone; received by him, and put by him to live with his grandmother in Knowstone; and resided there above forty days, during which time he there gained a settlement. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 706. 2 Bolt, Conel's ed. 588.

But in the K. v.

v. Barmby in the marsh, Ea. Ter. 46

Creo. 3, where the pauper who was an apprentice slept more than forty nights during his apprenticeship at Selby at different times, but slept the last night thereof at Barmby in the marsh at his grandmother's, in which latter place he had before slept There than 40 nights, in consequence of his being ill of a fever. He went to Barmby in the marsh with the consent of his master, there except as above stated. Two justices having removed the who received him again as an apprentice, and he never slept pauper from Barmby to Codby, the sessions reversed the order FORT of the order of sessions, and to shew that the pauper subject to the opinion of the court on the above case: IN SUPwas settled at Barmby, having slept for more than 40 nights,