Discharge of indentures.

including the last day of his apprenticeship, in that township, with the consent of his master, the foregoing case of the K. v, Charles was cited and relied on. BUT the COURT were all of opinion that the residence of the pauper in Barmby being on account of his illness was not a residence as an apprentice, and that the stat. of 3 Will 3. c. 11, must be understood of an inha. bitation referable in some way to the apprenticeship; but that the residence here with the grandmother was no more referable with the apprenticeship, than if the pauper had resided in an hospital or prison.--Order of sessions quashed. 7 Term Rep. 381. 3 East's Rep. 375.

And where the sessions had presumed that an indenture of apprenticeship executed thirty years before, and under which the apprentice had regolarly served his time for seven years, when the indenture was given up to him, and proved to be lost, and when the parish in which he was settled under such inden. ture had relieved him for the last 12 years, was properly stamp. ed in proportion to the apprentice fee of 12 received by the master, although the deputy register and comptroller of the stamp duties proved, that it did not appear in the office that any such indenture had been stamped or inrolled during that period. THE JUDGMENT of the justices was confirmed by the Court of King's Bench. Lord Ellenborough Ch. J. The question before the justices was, whether the presumption that ali was rightly done, after the lapse of so many years, were sufficiently rebutted by the negative evidence of the officer; they thought not, and wo cannot say they have done wrong, for the presumption of law is to be favoured; and against the negative evidence they may have set the possibility of an irregularity in the returns made to the office. The K. v. Long Buckby, Mic. Ter. 46 Geo. 3. 7 East's Rep. 45. 3 Smith's Rep. 92.

While the indentures of apprenticeship subsist, an appren tice cannot gain a settlement in another parish by hiring and service, even although the master has become bankrupt and ab sconded. Thus in Buckington v. Shepton Bechamp, Ea. 10 Geo. 1, the pauper was bound apprentice to a master at Bucking on; where he served and inhabited with his master for two years. Afterwards his master became a bankrupt; upon which the pauper without the direction or consent of his master, hired himself as a servant for a year to Joshua Glover of Shepton Bechamp, and served him for two years. During this service the term of his apprenticeship expired, and the master delivered up the indenture to Joshua Glover.-THE COURT of King's Bench were unanimously of opinion that the pauper gained no settle ment by his service in Shepton Bechamp; for the bankruptcy of the master did not discharge the apprentice from his inden tures, and therefore, not being sui juris, he could not hire himself without his master's consent. The contract with Glover was unlawful; he was not in a capacity to be hired as a servant, and could not gain a settlement in the parish of Shepton Bechamp; but his settlement is in the parish of Buckington, where

he lived and served his master under the indentures forty days. 3 Bott, Const's ed. 570.

And where the indentures are delivered up and exchanged, no subsequent service, and residence in a second parish with another master, shall be considered as a service and residence under the indentures, so as to confer a settlement in such second parish; but the settlement acquired by a service and residence with the first master shall remain. This was determined in the K. v. St. Mary Mallender, Tr. 21 & 22 Geo. 2. The pauper was bound by indenture an apprentice for seven years, to John Gregory of St. Michael's; and, under that indenture, lived and served in St. Michael' for five years; at the end of five years he left his master; and the indentures were exchanged between the mas ter and apprentice's father, by consent of the apprentice. About one year afterwards, the father contracted with William Stockdale of Twyford for binding the pauper apprentice for four years, and in consequence of that agreement, the pauper went to him on trial and lived with him in Twyford for one year and three quarters: but no indenture was executed, nor any other agree ment made. And while the pauper lived with the said IV S, John Gregory, his former master, lived within four miles of Twujord, and knew of his being in the service of the said W. S. But no other proof was made that the said Gregory consented or agreed to the said agreement between the pauper's father and the said William Stockdale.Lee Ch. J. There can be no ground to consider this as a settlement at Twyford, but upon supposing the first indentures to have subsisted, and that the service at Twyford was under them. But that could not be, because the exchange of the indentures certainly amounted either in law or in equity (and they are the same thing in this case), to a cancelling of them, and a determination of the apprenticeship under them. Besides, there is no consent of the original master: but the contrary is apparent. His knowledge of the fact does not at all imply his consent to the transaction. The apprentice's living at Twyford was not under, but contrary to the first indenture; it was in consequence of a fresh agree. ment, and for a new term.-The other judges concurred. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 274.

And although the indentures are not actually cancelled, yet if the

leaves him and never returns to the service; his residence in another parish shall not be considered as a residence under the indentures, but his former settlement shall continue. This was adjudged in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of St. John the Evangelist in Brecon, Mic. 33 Geo.3. The pauper was bound apwards of forty days,but not successively, with his master at Llany. prentice for seven years to a fidler at Llangwerm. He resided uperm under the indentures; at the end of twelve months he and his master parted; the master told him he was free, and the pauper considered himself free, and in fact did not return to his master again, but continued to live the remainder of the term You IV.

F

Master dying.

in St. John the Evangelist -The sessions, as the indentures were not regularly cancelled, considered the pauper as still servin under them in St. John's; and that his inhabitancy in that paris for the last forty days of his apprenticeship, had gained him settlement there. But the counsel who was to have argue in support of the order of sessions, admitted that he could ne maintain his position.-And by Buller J. (Lord Kenyon Ch.. and Ashhurst J. being absent). It has been held, that if an a prentice serve a third person by an express license from his ma ter, it is a service of the original master, under the indenture and confers a settlement; but here the master told the paup he might go where he pleased, so that there was no service u der the indentures after the first twelvem onths.-Grose J. co curred.-Order of sessions confirming the order of removal St John's quashed. Nolan's Rep. 165.

But if the master dies, the apprenticeship is determined; a the apprentice by hiring himself as a servant to another, a serving a year, may gain a settlement.-This was determin in the K. v. Eakring, Ea. 5 Geo. 3. The pauper was put a parish apprentice till his age of twenty years, and served master under the indentures for several years at Eakri About three years before he attained twenty years of age, ran away from his master, and loitered, for some time, ab the country. In the mean time the master died; and at M tinmas after, the pauper hired himself as a servant for a y and served that year at Selson; and at the next Martin hired himself for another year, and served that year also v the same master at Selson; and received all his wages to own use, the former master's executors taking no notice him; but he had not, at the expiration of the said serv attamed his age of twenty years. And the sessions being opinion, that the pauper did not, by virtue of such hiring service at Selson, under the circumstances aforesaid, gain a tlement in Selson, they reversed and discharged the orig order of the two justices, removing the pauper to that plac It was moved to quash this order of sessions, for that afte master's death, the apprentice was at liberty to hire himsel as he was hired for a year, and served a year in Selson, his settlement was there. Apprenticeship is a personal trus tween the master and servant, and is determined by the de: either master or apprentice.-The counsel who was to shewn cause against quashing the order, owned that he not defend it. The order of sessions was therefore qua and the original order affirmed. Burrow's Sct. Cas. 320.

And the settlement acquired by the apprentice previo the death of his master shall continue, though the inder remain uncancelled, and he go and reside in another par The K. v. Chirk, Tr. 14 Geo. 3, the pauper being boun prentice to a slater at Wrexham for three years, served the indenture nine months. His master died. He con a fortnight with the widow to complete the work unfinis

his master. The mistress afterwards having no employment for him or any other workmen, told him that he must not stay with her, and that he was at liberty to go where he thought proper. He and other workmen quifted her; but he apprehended that kis mistress had a right to call him back to finis his apprenticeship. On parting with his mistress, he told her that be was going to his father, who was a slater, There was no

particular agreement between his father and his mistress to his krosledge, nor were the indentures delivered up. His father lived in the parish of Chirk, and he continued with him for two or three years.---THE COURT held the seitlement to be in Wrethom, for it sufficiently appeared that he served forty days as an apprentice in that parish, and therefore his settlement remained there. The widow doth not appear to have had any interest; and no administration appears to have been taken out. Barroz's Set. Cus. 782.

But if an apprentice be assigned by his master's widow, though before administration granted; and is afterwards turned over by the assignee, under a parole agreement, to a third master; the apprentice shall gain a settlement in that parish where he has served and resided under the last assignment...This was determined in the K. v. Fast Bridgeford, Tr. 13 Gro. 2. The master of a parish apprentice dying intestate and insolvent, his widow (without any administration taken out) assigned the apprentice over to a webster at Staunton; who, about a year and an half afterwards, assigned him over, by verbal agreement, to another person for the remainder of his term; and he accordingly lived and served out the remainder of his term with the last master at East Bridgeford.---THE WHOLE COURT were esanimous, that this was a good settlement in East Bridgeford, where the apprentice lived above forty days; since, to this assignment, though only a verbal one, there was the consent of all the parties concerned. They observed, that though an assignment of an apprentice is not considered as a stric ́ly legal transaction (because the person of a man is not strictly and legally assignable ); yet where an apprentice has lived torty days under an assignment, he shall thereby gain a settlement, because of the consent. Burrow's Sett. Cases, 133.

So also if the apprentice, on the master's death, goes with the consent of the executors and lives with another person in a diferent parish, a service of forty days there, before the term of the apprenticeship expires, gains a settlement under the indentares...Thus in the K. v. Stockland, Hil. 19 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound an apprentice in husbandry by the parish of Stockland, to a man of that parish, till twenty-four years of age. He lived there four years under that indenture, when the master died. He continued with his master's son, who was his executor, and had proved his will, for about seven years, in the same parish; when, being desirous of living with his uncle in Otterton, to learn the trade of a miller, his uncle and he applied to the executor for his consent, who gave his consent

Apprentice un-' der age cannot consent to his

discharge.

accordingly, saying he would do any thing for the benefit of the pauper; and then the pauper made an agreement with his uncle for 1s. 6d. per week, and continued with him in the whole, two years and an half; at the end of the first four mouths of which time the pauper attained his age of twentyfour. By lord Mansfield. Though an apprentice is not strictly assignable, and cannot be transmitted to executors; yet if after the death of his master he continues with the executor in the character of an apprentice, and afterwards goes to live, with his own consent, and that of all the other parties, with another person in another parish, this must be taken as a continu. ation of the service under the original indentures, and gives a settlement by a residence of forty days--The case of East Bridgeford is much stronger than this; for there the assignment was made by a widow who had not taken out administration, Cal decot's Cases, 60, 62. 1 Doug. Svo. ed. 70, 71.

But the indentures cannot be discharged by the consent o the apprentice if he be under age, for his consent to this pur pose is of no validity---Thus in the K. v. Austrey, Hil. 3 Geo. 2. the pauper, a poor child, above ten years of age being bound by indenture by the parish officers of Grendon i Warwickshire, till his age of twenty-four; served and inhabite with his said master in Grendon under the said indentur which was dated in April 1744, until Michaelmas 1754, which time his master, in consideration of 40s. then paid hi by the pauper, agreed to discharge the said pauper from 1 said apprenticeship; which receipt and discharge was written the master on the back of the said indentures, which he th delivered up to his said apprentice.---On a question respecti the settlement of this apprentice, THE COURT were clearly opinion, as it appeared by the order, that he must have be under age at the time of his consenting to his discharge, th the indentures were not thereby vacated; for the consent an infant apprentice can signify nothing, nor be of any validi Burrow's Sett. Cas. 441.

And in the course of the argument in the case of the K. the Inhabitants of Hindringham, Hil. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, it contended, that an infant, if no other persons join him in e cuting the indentures of apprenticeship, may avoid them at time, as well before as after he comes of age; but lord Keny Ch. J. (the court concurring) said, he desired it might not taken for granted that an infant who binds himself apprent a contract so notoriously for his own benefit, may put end to that contract at any time during his minority. 67 Rep. 558.

But even where an apprentice may avoid the indentures leaving the master's service, and going into the service of ther with the master's approbation, is not such an avoid This was decided in the above case of the K. v. Hindring which was as follows: The pauper being of the age of bound himself an apprentice to a mariner for 4 years, and