ter,the pauper was informed that one Underhill wanted a boy, and as he was a going out of his master's house to meet Underhill, his master accosted him, and asked him where he was going; the pauper told him he was going down to Underhill, the master said he might go there or where he pleased, and thereupon the pauper left his master's house, and went and hind himself, and lived with Underhill, above forty days, in Sampford Courtenay, but no communication appeared to have taken place between the original master and Underhill. Tas QUESTION was, whether this were such an assent of the original master to the apprentice serving Underhill, as enabled the apprentice to gain a settlement in Sampford Courtenay, by his service with Underhill there?-Ld. Kenyon, Ch. J. The service with Underhill was not a prosecution of the service of the ori ginal master: the general principle of all the cases on this subject is to be found in the K. v. Astrey, there Ld. Mansfield said that in order to gain a settlement by the apprentice serving another master, there must be an express and explicit leave and consent given by the master to the particular service,' and not, as he observed in that case, a leave, intended to be quile general,or as here, a general quitting of the service and leave to where the pauper pleased.-Grose J. There must be a particufar consent of the original master to the service, with another in order to give a settlement; and whether there be such particular assent of the original master to the subsequent rice is more a question of fact than of law. The other judges greed that the conversation stated did not import an assent by master to the particular service. 1 East's Rep. 59. And the like was decided in the K. v. St. Helin Stonegate, Ter. 41 Geo. 3, which was as follows: the pauper, an

ce, being about to marry, told the master that he wishnd to provide and work for himself; to which the master const, and said he might do the best he could for himself, but nothing about the indentures, and they were not in fact bered up or cancelled; the pauper afterwards engaged to Tak with another master, who told the original master, that had got the pauper at work, to which the original master rad, 'I am glad of it, he was a bad lad, and I could make thing of him. THE COURT said, that this case was governed the decision in the K. v. Crediton, which was expressly in nt, and consequently they held that this was

not such a

at to the particular service as would confer a settlement the parish where the pauper then lived with the second masEart's Rep. 285.

the sessions state the fact, and draw their conclusion paper is settled in the parish where he served a second

equivalent to the having expressly found an assent original master to the particular service: thus in the Shebbear, the sessions on appeal had quashed an order tices, for the removal of the pauper from Shebbear Ersord, subject to the opinion of the court on the followThe pauper was bound by a parish indenture to

6

W. Trick, of Bradford; Trick assigned the apprentice after. wards to John Sleeman, of the same parish, with whom he liv ed till Lady Day, 1780, when two months were wanting of th expiration of the apprenticeship; he then proposed to Slee man to let him off the remainder of his time, which he a first refused to do: the pauper then offered to give Sleeman guinea if he would let him off, which Sleeman agreed to do, also to give him a new suit of cloaths when the guinea was pai the guinea was not paid to Sleeman, nor did Sleeman give th pauper the cloaths, nor were the indentures given up or cancelle on the morning of the Lady Day above mentioned, the paup went away and offered to serve one Brent, who refused to empl him conceiving him to be an apprentice; the same day went to one Butterkill, a blacksmith in Shebbear, who said would not take him without Sleeman's consent; the pauper th went to Sleeman, and told him what Butterhill had said; S man then replied, you may go with all my heart, I think will be a good thing for you to learn the trade :' on his t ing Butterhill what Sleeman had said, Butterhill agreed w him, and he lived with him in Shebbear for the last forty d and upwards before the expiration of his apprenticeship. Kenyon, Ch. J. This case is very distinguishable from the V. Crediton, for here the master was applied to for his con to the particular person named; and he expressed his ap bation of the apprentice going there, telling him that it w be advantageous to him to learn the trade; this then was an indiscriminate leave to serve any person, but a particular sent to a particular service; and this is the plain lin distinction between all the cases, which it is to be hoped make an end of all such cases in future. Perhaps it w have been more correct for the sessions to have found fact of such particular consent instead of only finding evidence of it as they have done and if any thing were ly to turn upon it in this case it should be sent dow them again to find that fact.---But I do not know wha vantage could accrue from thence to the respondents, for fect the sessions have drawn that conclusion, and upon premises I do not see how they could have drawn any 1 East's Rep. 75.

So also if the apprentice run away from a second mast whom he has been assigned, and return to the parish in the first master resides, his continuance there as an hir vant, unless it be with the express consent of the master not be considered as a continuance of the service indenture---Thus in the K. v. Ideford, Hil. 16 Geo, 3. pauper was bound a parish apprentice to a person at Chu and lived there three or four years; when she was assigned rol to a person of Ideford, with whom she lived seven n she then ran away, and returned to the parish of Ch and resided there for nine months, as a servant at 3 house, with the knowledge, but without any express of either her first or second master. The original ma sided in Chudleigh, during the time that the pauper live

public house, and frequently saw her there; but during her residence there, applied to the second master, to take her back to Ideford, and threatened to put him to trouble if he did not. The pauper, during the time she was at Chudleigh as aforesaid, was taken ill; and for part of the time so ill in the workhouse that she could not be removed; and was then relieved by the second master in the workhouse there. She never returned to Idford; but continned, for the last two years of her apprenticeship, in Chudleigh, in good health; where the apprenticeship expired.---By lord Mansfield. Here is no consent of the master, either express or implied; his mere know. ledge of it does not imply his consent to it. And the whole court were unanimous that no settlement was gained at ChudLeigh, after the pauper's return from Ideford. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 821.

But if the master, upon the departure of the apprentice from his service, give him a character to another person, with a view to his being hired as a servant, this shall be considered as a consent to the service---Thus in the K. v. St. Mary, Lambeth, Tr. 25 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound a parish apprentice for five years to a person of St. Botolph, with whom she continued a year and a half; when having staid out all night, her master and his wife, on her return, told her she was no longer their apprentice, and that she might go and look for another place; for which purpose they gave her money to go to a register-office. After this she continued a week with her master, when, hearing of a place, she agreed to hire herself as a servant to a person of St. Saviour's, at forty shillings a-year, which person came to her master and enquired her character; which turning oat satisfactory, he hired her on the above terms; in that service she continued to live nine months in St. Saviour's. The pauper at this time was under twenty-one; but when she left her master, the indentures were not delivered up nor cancelled. The question was, Whether a man giving a character to a servant for the purpose of her serving, consents to that service? And by lord Mansfield. The indentures were not cancelled; they subsisted; and the power over the servant continued: then the question is, Whether the master consented? The character was as servant.---Buller J. It is absurd to say that the Enquiry about the panper's character was merely from generat curiosity. It was evidently with a view to service; and the giving the character with that view was a consent.--Order of sessions quashing the order of removal from St. Mary Lambeth to St. Saziour's,quashed. 2 Bott, Const's ed.593 Caldecot's Cases, 533. So if the first master, on his giving the apprentice leave to get another master, recommends him to a particular person in the same trade, a service with that person shall be considered

service under the original indentures.---Thus in the K. v. the Holy Trinity in the Minories, Ea. 30 Geo. 3, the pauper was duly bound apprentice to a taylor of Tower-hill, for seven yas. Ile served six years of the term; when his master de. dined business, and informed him that he wished him to get

T

another master. The pauper then went home to his father, i St. Olave's, where he staid three or four weeks; but not meet ing with any service, he returned to his master, who thereupo told him that he heard one Edcards (a taylor, in Holy Trinity wanted a man; and told him to go and make an agreemen with him for his (the pauper's) good; and that he understoo Edwards would take him for twelve months. He according went to Edwards, and entered into an agreement in writing under seal, with him, covenanting to serve him for twelve ca lendar months in his business of a taylor; and Edward agreed to instruct him in that business, and find him in victual drink, and lodging, and at the end of the term to pay hi 124. in consideration of his service. The agreement was n stamped. The pauper was nineteen years of age when he le his master; and the indentures were not assigned, or cancelled but after the pauper had served Edwards two months, his mast gave him up his indentures; and he continued to serve at board with Edwards to the end of the term agreed, and the received his wages, and applied them to his own use. question was, Whether he gained a settlement by his servi with Edwards in the Holy Trinity-Lord Kenyon, Ch. It is extremely clear, that while the indentures of appre ticeship continue in force, the apprentice is not sui juris, a cannot gain a settlement as a servant*.. But it has been settle that the apprentice need not continue in the actual service the first master during the whole term; but that if he be assign over by the first master, or continue with his privity and co sent in the service of another person, he may gain a settleme by serving the second master forty days. Now in this case, t apprentice went not only with the consent, but with the expre recommendation of the first master to serve the second, and went there to follow the same trade which his first master h exercised. It has been said, that this case must be governed that of the K. v. Sandford, where the act of giving up the denture was taken as a strong circumstance to shew that his s vice with the second master was intended to be as a servant, a not as an apprentice: but there is a solid distinction between t case and the present. For there the master gave up the indentu previous to the pauper's entering into the second service: 1 here the indentures were not given up till more than for days had elapsed after the apprentice had served the seco master; and that is suflicient to give him a settlement in t parish. -Ashhurst J. declared himself of the same opinion. Buller J. The pauper could gain no settlement by living an hired servant with Edwards, because the indentures of prenticeship still existed; and the only question is, Whet the master did expressly consent to that service or not? for the cases shew that mere knowledge is not sufficient; kno ledge does not imply consent. Now here was an express c

* See the K. v. St. George, Hanover Square, in p. 72 supra.

sent and recommendation of the first master to serve the second." If indeed the apprentice had not gone into Edwards's service, he would not have gained a settlement by serving any other person, because a general licence to serve whom the apprentice chooses is not sufficient. By going into the service of any other person, the apprentice would have gone without the expris consent of the first master, and therefore might have been recalled by such master; but he could not have been recalled by tre first master from the service of Edwards, because of the express consent to serve Edwards. This is distinguishable from the case of the K. v. Sandford; for there the master had given up the indentures, and he had no longer any power over the servant; but here the indentures were in force during the first two months of the pauper's service with Edwards.-Grose J. concurred. Order of sessions confirming the order of removal to the parish of the Holy Trinity affirmed. 3 Term Rep. 695.

And it is efficient although the consent of the mister be not gives until the service with the second master has commenced. Thus in the K. v. Bradstone, Hil. 27 Geo. 3, the pauper being a parish apprentice, was duly assigned by his master to a person of Bradstone, with whom he continued till he was twenyears of age at this period, he and his master having some dispate, agreed to part, and the master gave him a permission #writing, signifying that he was at liberty, and had his consent to serve any other master. The pauper then left him, and hir ed himself to one Tressy of Beerferris for one year, which he red accordingly. His master had never given any par. var consent to this service with Tressy, or to his serving particular person; but it appeared that when the pauper had been in this service 8 months, his former master met Tressy by accident, and told him that the pauper was his apprentice; but he added, "You are welcome to keep him as long as you please, and may have his indentures when you please; for I shall think no more of him." The pauper continued in the service, at Beerferris, four months after this conversapassed. THE COURT being of opinion that this conversawasa sufficient consent on the part of the master to the ice of his apprentice with Tressy under the indentures, the der of removal to Bradstone, and also the order of sessions aiming the same, were quashed without argument. 2 Butt,

nfs ed. 590.

also if an apprentice be assigned to a second master, and rds hired to a third, with the second master's con; be shall gain a settement with the third master. Thus in The Tacistock, Ea. 7 Geo. 3, the pauper being a parish arate, lived with his master in Lamerton several years: er then transferred him, by assignment, to one Prout and a tad old; at which time he offered his service to one Maof Mitts Abbot; with whom he lived till he was twenty years To the parish of Kelly, Mason apprehending he was an ap prawce to Prent, sent to know, Whether it were with his