« PreviousContinue »
fiere: his landlord had covenanted, that if a second apprentice was bound for that estate, which second apprentice the pinner was, that he and his representatives would discharge him from any cxpence that he mijht thereby incur; the panjwibeing so bound, the landlord's widow and representative, on the master's application, took the boy; received the parish. Honey with him,carried him home with her,and afterwards removed to the parish of Charlet, where the boy resided with her about three years, and then became a cripple by losing both hiiteet. She thereupon returned him to his master, whorecaved him, upon her promise to pay him all the cxpence he should be at in taking care of the pauper; and then he put the paoprr to live with his (the pauper's) grandmother in Ktoatlone, at 1». 6rf. per week, wh«re 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 Knozestone 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 gain. mg a settlement: and that therefore this apprentice's legal settlement was in Charles, where he performed the service of his apprenticeship duriug the space of three years; and not in Knozttone, where he lay ill as a cripple, and was totally incapable of performing any service at all. But by The Court. 'file 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 consent, ■fto it, that gains a settlement; and this residence here ttiwl, cannot be deemed a casual residence, and therefore is notlobe compared to the cases under that head: the boy «is bound to a master in Knowstone; resided about three yean in the parish <>f Charlet; then became a cripple; was sent back to the first master at Knoicslone; received by him, and put by him to live with his grandmother in Knotcstone; and resided there above forty days, during which time he there sained a settlement. Burrow't Sett. Cas. 706. 2 Bottt OnsCted. 588.
But ia the K. Barmby in the marsh, Ea. Ter. 48 Geo. 3, where the pauper who was an apprentice slept more tfean forty nights during his apprenticeship at Selby at different times, hot slept the last night thereof at Barmby in the marsh U his grandmother's, in which latter place he had before flept Biore 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, *bo received him again as an apprentice, and he never slept t^ereexcept as above slated. Two justices having removed the paeper from Barmby to Codby, the sessions reversed the order object to the opinion of the court on the above case: In Si'h.
of the order of sessions, and to shew that the pauper «u Rtlled at Barmby^ baying slept for more than 40 iiiglils, including the last day of his apprenticeship, in that township) tei/h the consent of his master, the foregoing case of the K. ▼, 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 at an apprentice, and • that the stat. of 3 Will 3. c. 11, must be understood of an inhabitation 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 qnashed. 7 Term Itep, 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 regularly served his time tor seren years, when . the indenture uas ^iven up to him, and proved to be lost, and when the parish in w hich he was settled under such indenture had relieved him for the last 12 years, uas properly stamped in proportion to the apprentice ice 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 orinrollrd during that period. The J L DomesT of the justices was confirmed by the Court of Kng's bench. Lord Ellen borough Ch. J. The question before the justicis was,whether the presumption that all was rightly dona, 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 ntecy have set the possibility of an irregularity in the returns made to the office. '1 he K. v. Long lluckby,Mic.Ter. 46 Geo. 3. 7 East s Rrp. 45. 3 Smith's Rep. 92. Discharge of YV hitc the indentures of apprenticeship subsist, an apprcnuuteniorej. t;ce cannot gain a settlement in another parish by hiring and service, even although the master has become bankrupt and absconded.—Thus in Buckington v. Shepton Bechamp, Ea. 1Q Gto. 1, the pauper was bound apprentice to a master at Buckington; 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 J oshua Glover oi Shepton liechamp, and served him for two years. During this service the term ol 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 settlement by his service in Shepton Bechamp; for the bankruptcy of the master did not discharge the apprentice from his indentures, and therefore, not being sui juris, he could not hire himtelf icithout his muster's consent. The contract with Glover ■wab unlawful; lie teas not in a capacity to be hired as a servant, and could not gain a settlement in the parish of SJttpton Bechamp; but hie settlement is in the parish at Buckington, w her# he lived and served his master under (lie indentures forty days. 1 Bolt, CjnsCsed. 570.
And where the indentures arc delivered tip and exchanged, no subsequent serrice,and residence in atcrond parish witli another master, shall b? considered as a service and residence under the indentures, s J as to confer a settlement !n such second p.irish; bet the settlement acquired by a semce and residence with the first master shall remain.—This -was determined in the K. v. Sf. Mary Mallender,Tr.1\ k Geo. 1. The pauper was bound by indenture an apprentice for seven years, to John Gregory of •St. MichaePf ; and, nnderthat indenture, lived and sorted in St. .M/cnoe/'i for fife years ; at the end of live years he left his master; and the indentures were exchanged brtween the muster aae° apprentice's father, by consent of the apprentice. Abjut one year »fierirard<, the father contracted with I'Villiain Slock, dale ofTsyford for binding the pauper apprentice for fourycars, and in cansequence of that agreement, tin'pauper went to him on tria\ and lived with him in Ticyford lor one year and three qaartcrs: but no indenture was executed, nor any other agreement made. And while the pauper lived with the said W St John Gregory, bis former master, lived within four miles of Ttsyj'ord, aid knew of his being in the service of the said IV. S. But no other proof was made that the said Gregory consented or a;reed to the said agreement between the pauper's father and
the said William Slockdale. Lee Ch. J. There can be no
cround to consider this as a settlement at Tioyf'vrdt but upon supposing the first indentures to have subsisted, and that the service at Tvyford was under them. But that could not be, because the exchange of the indentures certainly amounted cither i» law or in equity (and they are the same thing in this case), to a cancelling of them, and a determination of the apprenticcfhip under them. Besides, there is no consent of the original waster: but the contrary is apparent. His knowledge of tho fact does not at all imply his consent to the transaction. The apprentice's living at T-jtvford was not under, but contrary to the first indenture; it was in consequence of afresh a^reeneat, and for a new term.—The other judges concurred. Burraa't Sett. Cos. 274.
And although the indentures are not actually cancelled, yet if the muter tells his apprentice that he is Jrec, and the latter him and never returns to the service; his residence in parish shall not be. considered as a residence under tha bnt his former settlement shall continue.—This was in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of St. John the in Brecon,Mic. 33 Geo.3. The pauper was bound upi rer.iice for seven years to a fidier at L/atiyicerm. lie resided upwards of forty days,but not successively,with hii master at Many. tfra under the indentures ; at the eud of twelve mouths he anil his master parted ; the master told him he was free, and the pauper considered himself free, and in fact did not return to his isiaMei again, bat continued to live the remainder of the term in St. John the Evangelist — The sessions, as the indentures w not regularly cancelled, considered the pauper as still sen under them in St. John's ; and that his inhabitancy in that pa for the last forty days of his apprenticeship, hail gained lii settlement there. But the counsel who was to have arg in support of the order of sessions, admitted that he could maintain his position.—And by Jiuller J. (Lord Kenyan Ch and Ashhunt J. being absent), lthas been held, that if an prentice serve a third person by an express license from his ■ ter, it is a service of the original master, under the indent! . and confers a settlement ; but here the master told the pai he might go where he pleased, so that there was no service der the indentures after the first twelvem onthf.—Grcse J. curred.—Order of sessions confirming the order of reuiova St John's quashed. Nolan's Rep. 165. Moiter dying. But if the master dies, the apprenticeship is determined; the apprentice by hiring himself as a servant to another, serving a j ear, may gain a settlement.—This was dcterm in the K. v. Eakring, Ea. 5 Geo. 3. The pauper was put a parish apprentice till his age of twenty years, and serve* master under the indentures for several years at Eak> About three years before he attained twenty years of agi ran away from his master, and loitered, for some time, a the country. In the mean time the master died; and at 1 tinmas after, the pauper hired himself as a servant for a j and served that year at Sehon; and at the next Marti) hired himself for another year, and served that year also the same master at Stlson; and received all his wages tt own use, the former master's executors taking no notlc him; but he had not, at the expiration of the said ser attained his age of twenty years. And the sessions bein opinion, that the pauper did not, by virtue of such hiring service at Selson, under the circumstances aforesaid, gam a tlement in Selson, they reversed and discharged the ori order of the two justices, removing the pauper to that pla< It was moved to quash this order of sessions, for that alte master's death,the apprentice was at liberty to hire himself as he was hired for a year,and served a year in Selson, his settlement was there. Apprenticeship is a personal trna tween the master and servant, and is determined by the dea either master,or apprentice.—The counsel who was to shewn cause against quashing the order, owned (hat he < not defend it.—The order of sessions was therefore qua and the original order affirmed. Burro-Ji's Set. Can. 320.
And the settlement acquired by the apprentice previoi the death of his master shall continue, though the indon remain uncancelled, and he go and reside in another pari1 The K. v. Chirk, Tr. 14 Geo. 3, the pauper being bouiu prentice to a slater at Wrexham for three years, served i the indenture nine months. His master died. He com i a fortnight with the widow to complete the work unliuishi his master. The mistress afterwards having no emplov mrnt for him or any other workmen, told him that he rmist not stay with her, and that he was at liberty to go where lie thought pro. p*r. lie and other workmen quitted her; but he apprehended that his ro:jfres.« had a right to call hi:n back to finish his apprenticeship. On parting with his mistress, lie told iier that i«- wa« going to his father, who was a staler. There was no particular agreement hL'twcen liis father and his mi-tr-ss to his knowledge, nor were the indentures delivered up. His father Ihcd in the parish of Chirk , and he continued with him for
two or three years The Court held the se.tl.\netit to be in
Wnrzhom. for it sufficiently appeared that he served ft>rfy days s> in apprentice in that parish, and therefore bis settlement reauiord there. The widowdoth not appear to have had any interest; and no administration appears to hat e been taken out. Burros Set. Cos. 782.
But if in apprentice be a'signed by his master's widow, laoagh before administration granted; and is afterwards turned OTer by the assignee, under a parole agreement, to a third mas. tor; tie apprentice shall gain a settlement in that parish where he bas served and resided under the last assignment—This was determined in the K. v. East Bridgeford, Tr. 13 Geo. 2. The aaster 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 aud an half afterwards, assigned him over, by verba! agreement, to another person for the remainder of his term ; and he according!;, lived and served out the remainder of his term with the
fast Blaster at Ea<l Bridgeford Tux Whole Court were
■aaniaoiis, that this was a good scttletneut in East Ihidgejord, *herethe apprentice lived above forty days; since, to this assgnaent, though only a verbal one, there was the consent of all tie parties concerned. They observed, that though an asipnncnt of an apprentice is not considered as a strictly legal ttaaiaction (because the person of a man is not strictly and legally assignable ); yet where an apprentice has lived forty days under an assignment, he shall thereby gain a settlement, brcanseof the consent. Burruzs's Sett. Cases, 133.
So also if the apprentice, on the master's death, goes wiih tie consent of the exceptors and lives with another person in a different parish, a service of forty days there, before the term of the apprenticeship expires, gains a settlement under the indtntore*—Thus in the K. r. Stockland, Ml. 19 Geo. 3, the pasper was bound an apprentice in husbandry by the parish of Stocklavd, to a man ol that parish, till twonty-fourycars of ^e. He lived there four years under that indenture, when VjgflHtter died. He continued with his master's son, who was lb executor, and had proved his will, for about seveu years, ia the same parish; when, being desirous of living with his *acle in Otlerlon, to learn the trade of a miller, his uncle and ie applied to the executor for his consent, who gave, his consent