ed at Blakeney, under his indenture of apprenticeship, more than 40 days. When he had been an apprentice about 13 or 14 months, he went on shore from out of one of his master's ships, and meeting with a press-gang, he entered into his ma jesty's service, as a sailor, with the consent of his master; but the indentures of apprenticeship were not delivered up or cancelled by the master during the term of his apprenticeship. He continued in the king's service about two years, and was then discharged: after which, viz. at Whitsuntide 1783, he let himself to a person of Hindringham, from that time to Michael mas following; and at that Michaelmas (which was the Michaelmas before the term of the indenture of apprenticeship would have expired) the pauper let himself the following year to the same master, and served him for that year in Hindringham. It was contended that the indentures were put an end to when the apprentice entered into the king's service, and being thus avoided, he became his own master, and by the hiring and service in Hindringham, gained a settlement there.---But by lord Kenyon, Ch. J. and the court, There is no ground for saying that the apprentice did any act to put an end to the indentures when he entered into the king's service. In this case the pauper bound himself to a master by indentures, under which he served in Blakeney more than 40 days; afterwards, when he was pressed into the king's service, he agreed to go as a volunteer, with the consent of his master, evidently im. plying that he did not then put an end to the indentures. It appears, therefore, that the indentures still continued in force, and consequently the pauper could not enter into a legal contract of hiring himself with another, he not being at that time eui juris. 6 Term Rep. 557.

So in the case of Ashcroft v. Bertles, Ea. Ter. 36 Geo. 3. which was an action for enticing away and harbouring an apprentice, it appeared, that the apprentice, after he had attained the age of 21 years, eloped from his master, and entered into the service of another person: the master brought his action against this person, and obtaining a verdict, it was insisted, upon a motion for a new trial, that he could not maintain such an action, the apprenticeship being put an end to by the young man's quitting his master's service, not secretly or frau dulently, but openly and avowedly, for the purpose of dissolving the relation between them. BUT THE COURT declared themselves perfectly satisfied with the verdict, and said that (supposing the indentures to be voidable, which they were not prepared to decide,) the mere act of quitting the master's service was not an avoidance of them. 6 Term Rep. 652.

However, if the apprentice be of full age, his consent to the discharge of the indentures will be valid. In the K. v. Ecclesal Bierlow, Ea. 6 Geo. 3. the pauper was bound out by the parish an apprentice to a cutler of Ecclesal Bierlow, for the term of eight years. He resided there, under the indenture, upwards of five years; when having attained the age of twenty

one, he and his master agreed to cancel the indentures, and the same were accordingly cancelled: afterwards the pauper was hired for, and served a year in Warslow.---THE QUESTION was, Whether an apprentice of full age, bound out when under age by the parish, could agree to cancel the indentures, and afterwards gain a settlement for himself by a hiring and service for a year?-Lord Mansfield. There seems to be no necessity of the parish officers joining in the consent to discharge this ap prentice. There is no authority for it: and I see no incon. venience to the parish or to any one else, in its being done without their concurrence. The act of parliament empowers then to bind the man child out apprentice till he comes to the age o twenty-four* And the act of parliament was necessary to mak valid the binding of the male parish-apprentice till his age twenty-four; for he could not be bound longer than ti twenty-one without the aid of the act, and two justices are t assent to this. But the same reason does not hold as to th discharge of the apprentice: this concerns the master and th apprentice only. The latter part of the apprentice's time is most service to the master. Therefore, the apprentice being age, if the master and he agree to it, they two may dissol the contract. If so, then this person was sui juris when hired himself at Warslow: and consequently, he gained a se tlement there by a hiring for a year and service for a yea Burrow's Sett. Cas. 562.

And although the indentures are neither delivered up r cancelled, yet if the apprenticeship is actually dissolved w the consent of the apprentice (he being of full age), such a prentice may gain a settlement in another parish by a sub quent hiring and service; thus in the K. v. Harberton, I 28 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound by the parish of Harber apprentice to William Soper of that parish till twenty-four. continued to live with his master till within one month of attaining twenty-one, when he deserted his service, and absent seven months, and then returned to his father in I berton, with whom he staid a few weeks. He then offered i self as a servant to a person of Ashpreington, who refuse take him until he shewed him a receipt from his master buying out his time, which receipt was in the following wo "February 24, 1783...RECEIVED of J E the sum of "pounds four shillings, for the remainder of his time, by ❝ WILLLIAM SOPER." This receipt was obtained by the per's father, at the request of the pauper. At the time the receipt was signed, and the money paid, the master of to give up the INDENTURE, which the father did not take, thinking it material, and the apprentice was not present. master continued to keep the INDENTURE uncancelled

But now by 18 Gro. 3. c. 37, no such man-child can be bou apprentice for longer than till he shall come to the age of twenty-on

delivered it up to the pauper, after he attained twenty-four
years of age. After signing the said receipt, and paying the
money, the pauper hired himself for a year, and served that
year in Ashpreington. Afterwards he made an agreement for
another year, and served that year also in the same parish.'
It was contended that the apprenticeship in this case continued,
because the indenture was not cancelled, or delivered up, which
would be equivalent to cancelling; and therefore that the
pauper was incapable of contracting to serve any other master
during the term. After the case had been argued, the court
took time to consider; and afterwards, lord Mansfield deli-
vered the unanimous opinion of the court.---It is of more con-
sequence that the law should be certain, than what it is: and
this is more particularly true with respect to the law of settle-
ments. It would have been more convenient if the court had
never gone farther than to enquire, Whether, in such cases as
this, the indentures were actually cancelled or given up? But
the cases have already departed from that line, and gone into
the particular circumstances; and it would now be more in-
convenient to over-rule those cases. It is a clear line to go by,
that wherever the indenture is so far made an end of, as to give
the apprentice a remedy at law, it shall be considered as a dis-
solation of the apprenticeship: but if it were extended to every
case where a court of equity would relieve, the enquiry would
be endless; and different magistrates, not bred to the profes-
sion, though good and honest men, would, when left to decide
secundem discretionem, breed endless confusion, by frequently
in the like cases making very contrary determinations.
Rules
of law, therefore, in cases like the present, should be positive
and fixed. The true question therefore is, Whether the facts
here are such as put an end to the indenture at law, and could
be pleaded in bar to an action on it? The master received
four guineas: he gives a receipt for it, as a consideration for
the remainder of the service; and he offers to deliver up the
indentures. After this, if the master had brought an action on
the indentures, we are of opinion, that the apprentice might
have defended himself by plea of accord and satisfaction, or he
might have maintained trover for it. The indenture must be con-
sidered as if it no longer existed, and the consequence is, that
the apprentice had a right to hire himself to another master,
and therefore gained a settlement by hiring and service in Ash-
preington. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 576. 1 Term Rep. 139.

An apprentice bound to one master, and serving another, Serving with a shall gain a settlement in the parish where the master lives with second master. whom he resides. This was determined in the Holy Trinity v. Shoreditch, Mic. 3 Geo. 1.-Parker Ch. J. delivered the resolution of the court. This is an order for the removal of a pauper from Holy Trinity to Shoreditch: by which it appears that he was bound as an apprentice to one Truby,with intent that he should serve Green; which he did for three years. And it - has been insisted, that he being bound to Truby, who lives in

Trinity parish, his settlement is there; and not in Shoreditch where the service was. But we are of opinion the justices hav done right in sending him to Shoreditch, where the service ac tually was. It is the same thing as if Truby had turned him over to Green; in which case there would have been no question but he had gained a settlement in Green's parish. 1 Strange

10.

So if the master hire out his apprentice, the apprentice shal gain a settlement in that parish where he inhabits with his secon master.-St. Olave's v. All Hallows, Tr. 9 Geo. 1, the paupe was bound apprentice to a farrier in St. Olave's, and havin served two years, was by a verbal agreement between his mas ter and one Dennis sent to serve the said Dennis in Allhallows where he served five years.-By THE COURT. He is settled i the parish where he last served; for it shall be still intende that he served his first master upon the agreement, and that was but a continuance of his apprenticeship. 8 Mod: 169 Cas. Sett. & Rem. 153. 1 Strange, 554. 1 Sess. Ca

215.

So in the K. v. St. George's Hanover Square, Mic. 8 Ge 2, the pauper was bound out by the parish officers to a mast who lived in the parish of St. George, Hanover Square; whe she lived above forty days, and gained a settlement. Afte wards she was, by parole agreement, hired out by her mast to a man in St. Mary le Bone; where she resided and work above forty days (viz. for the space of one year and upwards the said apprenticeship continuing; during which time her fir master received her wages, and found her in clothes.—Aft the case had been fully considered, the whole court were clear of opinion, that the pauper was legally settled in St. Mary Bone. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 12.

And as an apprentice by serving a second master forty da with the express consent of the first, gains a settlement in t parish where that service is performed, whether the mast did or did not consent to the service with the second master, a question of evidence: If, therefore, to prove that the serv with a second master was with the consent of the first, a writ instrument be offered in evidence, it must appear that such strument was duly stamped: and if it be not stamped, it ca not be received as evidence; consequently the settleme gained by the first service will remain. Thus in the case the 'K. v. St. Paul's, Bedford, Mic. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, the pau having been removed from St. Paul's, Bedford, to Kempst the sessions quashed the order, and stated the following ca for the opinion of the court. On 29th December, 1777, pauper was bound apprentice for 7 years to a cordwainer Lempston; the pauper served in Kempston till October 17 when he removed with his master to the parish of Biddenhe where the apprentice continued till the death of his master 10th October, 1783. On the 24th of November following, agreement was entered into between the master's executrix

another person, and endorsed on the indenture, by which the
executrix assigned over the apprentice to such person for the
remainder of the term, and he agreed to teach the apprentice
the same trade, and to provide him with board and lodging till
the end of the term. This agreement was signed by the execu»
trix and the second master, but not stamped. Immediately
after the assignment, the pauper went into the service of the
second master in Kempston, and continued to reside there with-
out interruption till September 1781. The indenture being prov
ed, the respondents offered the written agreement in evidence,
which the sessions rejected, because it was not stamped: the respon
dents then offered parol evidence of the verbal agreement by
the executrix with the second master, that the apprentice should
serve with him the remainder of the term of 7 years under the
Indenture, and of the pauper's consent. This evidence the ses
slons also rejected.-By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. it is settled that,
an apprentice serve a second master 40 days with the express
consent of the first, he gains a settlement in the parish where
that service is performed: the first master has not indeed the
absolute controul over the apprentice, so as to compel him to
go to any part of the kingdom, and serve another master: but
if he do serve a second with the consent of the first, it is suffici-
ent: it must be with the consent of the first master, for it has
becu decided, that his mere knowledge of such service will not
answer the purpose...The question here is a question on evi-
pence, whether the executrix of the master did or did not con-
sent to the service with the second master: the court of sessions
were of opinion that the instrument which was produced to
prove that consent could not be received in evidence, because
its not stamped; and therefore it becomes necessary to con
sider how far the stat. 23 Geo. 3. c. 58, affects this case. By
that act all agreements are to be stamped, except such as fall with
in any of the exceptions mentioned in the fourth clause, which
among other things enacts, that the act shall not extend to "any
"memorandum or agreement for the hire of any labourer, ar
❝tificer, manufacturer, or menial servant." It is said that this
person comes within some one of the descriptions there menti-
oned: but he was not a servant; he had acquired another spe
cifc denomination well known in the law,-an apprentice. The
exception clearly refers to cases where there is a hiring, but
that was not the present case; hiring is not applicable with
any propriety to the case of an apprentice. Apprentices aud
servants are characters perfectly distinct: the one receives in-
struction, the other a stipulated price, for his labour. I think,
therefore, that we should be doing violence to this act, to deter
mine that an apprentice comes within the terms in this clause of
exception; and consequently the sessions did right to reject this
instrument. And when an attempt was made to give parol eri-
dence of the agreement, they also did right in refusing to receive
it, because the agreement was reduced to writing. I am satis-
fied that the justices at the sessions were warranted in reject-

23