A pauper settled in the pa rish of N. C. in the county of shall be signed as thereinbefore directed. There must, therefore, be an allowance, not of such indenture, but of such indenture as was thereinbefore directed, viz. of one referring to the order of justices by the date thereof. I doubt whether the 11th section applies to such a case as the present, or whether it applies only to such cases where the binding is by the parents, and not by the overseers; but I am clearly of opinion that, construing the first and fifth sections together, this indenture is void, and that no settlement was gained in the parish of B. by the service under it. --BEST J. The first and the fifth sections are to be taken together, and then there can be no doubt that a settlement was not gained in the parish of B., because in the indenture the order of the justices was not referred to by the date. Such indenture means the indenture before spoken of.—Order of Sessions quashed. 735. Rex v. Newark-upon-Trent, T.T. 5G.4. 3 B. & C. 59.Upon appeal against an order of two justices, for the removal of W. H., his wife and child, from the parish of N.-upon-T., in the county of N., to the township of N. C., in the same county, the Nottingham, Sessions discharged the order of removal, subject to the opinion of was, pursuant this Court on the following case: The pauper, W. H., a poor boy to an order of of, and then legally settled in the parish of N. C., in the county two justices of of N., was, on the 18th day of June 1817, pursuant to an order of the county, bound apprentwo justices of that county, bound apprentice by the churchwar- tice by the dens and overseers of the poor of the said parish, to E. S., of the churchwardens parish of N.-upon-T.., in the county of N., by indenture, for a and overseers term therein mentioned. A premium of 10l. was given with the of that parish, apprentice to the master by the said churchwardens and overseers, although only 51. was set forth in the indenture as the sum paid. The two justices who signed the aforesaid order, afterwards signed and sealed their allowance of the indenture of apprenticeship, before the same was executed by any of the other parties thereto. tices who had The parishes of N. C. and N.-upon-T., are distant from each other exclusive jurisabout six miles, and in the same county. No notice whatever was diction therein. given to the overseers of the poor of the parish of N.-upon-T., or to The indenture any of them, of the intention to bind out such apprentice; nor was allowed by did they, or any of them, attend before the justices who signed the two county the order and allowed the indenture, nor was any such notice justices, but no alleged or attempted to be proved to have been given, but the given to the said justices allowed the said indenture without any such proof of overseers of the service or admission of notice. N.-upon-T'. is a borough situate poor of the in the county of N., having justices who have exclusive jurisdic- parish in the borough of the tion therein. The pauper resided under this indenture in N.-upon- tion to T. more than 40 days. This case was argued in last term by CHITTY in support of the order of Sessions, and SCARLETT and BALGUY contra. There being a difference of opinion on the bench, the Court delivered their judgments seriatim. BAYLEY, HOL ROYD, and LITTLEDALE Js. were of opinion that the indenture was void, ABBOTT C. J. dissent. (In this case the reader is referred who allowed to 3 B. & C. p. 59. to 88. for the judgments of the learned Judges.) the indenture to A. B. of another parish, in a borough situate in the same county, but having jus notice was bind such apprentice; nor did they or any of them attend before the county justices and admit such notice: Held, by three justices, Abbott C. J. dissentiente, that by 56 G. 3. c. 139., the indenture was void for want of such notice, and that the pauper did not gain any settlement by serving under it. 736. Rex v. Lutterworth, M.T. 5G.4. 3 B. & C. 487. Upon Where a parish an appeal against an order of two justices, for the removal of has united with M. H., wife of W. H., a soldier, and their son Francis, aged six others for the support of the poor, according to the provisions of the 22 G. 3. c. 83., and a guardian has been appointed, the churchwardens and overseers may, nevertheless, bind poor children apprentices, and it is not necessary that the guardian should tures. months, from the parish of L. to the parish of H., both in the county of L., the Sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: W. H., a poor child of the parish of B., was bound apprentice by the churchwardens and overseers of that parish, with consent of two magistrates, by indenture, dated 19th January 1807, to B. E., of H., and he served him in H., under that indenture, for the term of his apprenticeship. At the time when the pauper was bound out, the parish of B. A. found part of the incorporation of the house of industry at U. in the said county, under the provisions of the 22 G. 3. c.83. G. L. was appointed guardian of the poor of B. A. at Easter 1803, by two magistrates. The appointment is in existence, but though G. L. continued to act as guardian for B. A. for several years aftersign the inden- wards, and was acting in that capacity at the time when the boy was bound out, he was not made a party to the indenture, nor can any subsequent appointment be found.-ABBOTT C. J. I am of opinion that the binding, stated in this case, was a valid binding, and that the pauper, by serving under it, gained a settlement in H. The 7th section of the 22 G. 3. c. 83., is calculated to raise a doubt on the point, for it excludes the interference of the churchwardens and overseers, in the care and management of the poor, where guardians are appointed. If there were nothing else in the act to guide us, it might be difficult to say that they could interfere in binding parish apprentices. But, in subsequent parts of that statute, various powers are expressly given to guardians of the poor, and, by the 30th section, they are authorized to provide for poor children until they arrive at a proper age to be placed out, when they are to be bound out according to the laws then existing. One of these laws was the 43 Eliz. c. 2., directing that parish apprentices shall be bound out by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor. And it is better that a binding should take place by several churchwardens and overseers than by a single guardian of the poor. BAYLEY and HOLROYD JS. concurred. - · Order of The indentures of a mariner's apprentice bound under the 5 Eliz. c.5. must be inrolled in the next corporate town, according to the statute; and See Cuerden v. Sessions quashed. IX. Of Apprentices to the Sea Service. See stats. 5 Eliz. c.5. § 12. 2 & 3 Ann. c. 6. § 1 to 18. 4 Ann. c.19. § 16, 17. 13 G. 2. c. 17. § 2. 2 G. 3. c. 15. § 22, &c. 737. Poulson's case, E. T. 6 W. & M. 3 Lev. 389. - In covenant the plaintiff declared, on the 5 Eliz. c. 5. § 12. that mariners may take apprentices, and that they shall be bound as apprentices in London are, by the custom there, the indentures being enrolled in the next town-corporate: and that King Charles the Second incorporated all mariners by the name of THE TRINITY COMPANY, of Deptford Strand, and ordained that they might take apprentices according to the statute, and that their indentures should be enrolled by THE TRINITY COMPANY, and that such enrolments should be good, notwithstanding the statute 5 Eliz. c. 5.; that the defendant was bound apprentice to the plaintiff, being a mariner; that the indentures were enrolled before THE TRINITY COMPANY; and that the defendant departed from his service. To this declaration the defendant demurred, because the enrolment was before THE TRINITY COMPANY, according to the charter, and not in the next TOWN-CORPORATE, according to the statute. And THE WHOLE COURT resolved, that the King cannot by his charter alter the place of enrolment, but that it must be according to the direction of the statute; otherwise the covenant should be according to the common law, and the apprentices not bound by them: and judgment was given for the defendant. 738. Rex v. Gainsborough, E. T. 8 G. 3. Burr. S. C. 586.By indenture dated the 1st day of June 1756, C. M., being then 17 years old, did, with the consent of his mother, put himself apprentice to R. B., mariner, of W. S., for four years then next ensuing, and was to receive wages increasing every year. The indenture was not enrolled in the town where the apprentice was then inhabiting, nor in the next corporate town to the habitation of the apprentice, pursuant to the statute 5 Eliz. c. 5., nor with the collector of the customs, pursuant to the 2 & 3 Ann. c. 6. He served about three years, and then left his master by consent. He served his master mostly on board at sea, but inhabited in W. S. the first 14 days, and so many days after, at many different times, as with those 14 days amounted to upwards of 40 days in the whole, and in no other parish for 40 days during his apprenticeship. The Sessions held, that he did not thereby gain a settlement in W. S. LORD MANSFIELD. Then the justices have done wrong. It would be very hard that the apprentice should suffer for his master's neglect. I think the cases have gone too far upon the stamp act: it is summum jus; and has been considered strictly on account of the preservation of the duties payable to the crown. Let the rule be made absolute for quashing the order of Sessions. X. Of Apprentices bound by public Charities. - - The apprentice shall not be prejudiced by the neglect of the master to enroll the indentures although the stamp duties are thereby evaded. The parson's consent not necessary to the binding upon Jac. 1. c. 3. the statute See stats. 7 Jac. 1. c. 3. § 1 to 7. 8 Ann. c. 9. 44 G. 3. c. 98. 739. Rex v. Chalbury, E. T. 9 G. 2. MSS.- A pauper was bound an apprentice to one C. of C., by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of A., with money belonging to A. parish, till he should arrive to 23 years of age. The orders stated further, that there were in the parish of A. two churchwardens, two overseers, and two constables. The 7 Jac. 1. c. 3. says, that the parson or vicar of every such parish where there is charity money shall, together with the constables, &c.; and the question was, Whether the binding was legal, the parson not being made a party? which it was insisted he ought to be; as in a charter where it is said the mayor with the burgesses, or the greater number of them, may do any act, there the mayor is a necessary party in the doing of the act. - But PER CURIAM: There is no necessity to construe an act of parliament with the same strictness as a charter. In the case of the mayor, the law considers him as the head-officer, and the person to hold the assembly; but in the case of the poor, the parson is not so necessary as the churchwardens or overseers. 740. Rex v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, H. T. 7 G. 3. Burr. A voluntary S. C. 574. J. F. was brought up at the charity-school of the contribution parish of St. J., and in the year 1747 was bound apprentice by yearly of divers indenture to J. R., a blacksmith, for seven years; and served his of the inhabitwhole time as apprentice under such indenture, with R., in the pa- is a PUBLIC ants of a parish, rish of St. B.; and at the time of his being put apprentice, the CHARITY withsum of 5. was inserted in the indenture as paid, and was actually in the statute then paid to R., in consideration of his taking F. to be his appren- 8 Ann. c. 9. tice, out of a voluntary yearly contribution or subscription of $40. divers of the inhabitants of St. J., for the purpose of putting out As to stamping indentures, vide No. 48. 69. 80. 3 Burr. S. C. 120. (a) Vide 8 Ann. c. 9. § 39. A bequest of money to put out children apprentices as the testatrix's brother should think fit, is a public charity within 8 Ann. c. 9. § 40. boys and girls apprentices, brought up at the charity school of | 741. Rex v. Clifton upon Dunsmore, H. T. 12G.3. Burr. S. C. 697.-G. H., when about 13 years of age, was bound apprentice by indenture, stamped with a treble sixpenny stamp, to W. W., of S., for seven years. The consideration-money in the indenture (being 7) received by the master, was mentioned in the indenture, to be paid by J. B., of C., being charity-money left by C. B., widow; but the indenture was not stamped with any stamp denoting 6d. in the pound to have been paid by the master for every pound of the said 7., nor any apprentice-duty paid for any part thereof. C. B., in her life-time, had a considerable estate in the parish of C., and J. B. was her steward and agent over her affairs there, and was afterwards steward to her successor in the estate there. It appeared by the evidence of the attorney concerned in filling up the indenture (and who was á subscribing witness thereto), that two other poor children of the parish of C. were about the same time put out apprentices, and that he, the attorney, made the indentures for the placing them out. One of the two last-mentioned indentures was produced; and there was a receipt thereupon indorsed, signed by the master, for 10. received as consideration-money from J. B., as charitymoney left by C. B., widow; but no sum was mentioned in the body of that indenture as the consideration for taking the apprentice bound thereby. B. gave orders to the attorney for making the indentures; and at the respective times he so gave such orders, and also at the respective times he paid the considerationmonies, declared, "that the said monies were left by Mrs. C. B.'s "will, for putting out poor children of the parish of C. appren"tices; and that he paid the same by order of her executors; and "that the whole of the money so left by her will was 70., or "thereabouts; and that what remained after deducting the monies "paid with such three apprentices (which was about 277.), was "distributed amongst the poor families in the parish of C." The copy of which will was: "ITEM, To Ludgate prison, 100., to take "out prisoners for small debts. ITEM, To Whitechapel prison, 30, "to take out prisoners for small debts. ITEM, To the two "Compters, 20l. to each, to take prisoners out. ITEM, TO C., 50l., a PUBLIC CHARITY. -- binding out an apprentice, with the trustees of certain funds bequeathed for the binding out poor apprenexecuted by the apprentice and master, and recited the trus the consent of tices, which was 742. Rex v. Quainton, H. T. 54 G. 3. 2 M. & S. 338. Removal An indenture from Q. to B. Order quashed, subject, &c. The pauper, a poor boy of Q., was, in 1811, with the consent and approbation of the trustees of certain funds, left upon trust for the purpose of binding out apprentices, bound apprentice to J. A., of B., for seven years, for the consideration of 20., stated in the indenture to be paid to A. by the said trustees, who were also recited to be parties to the said indenture; but it was only executed by the pauper and A. This indenture was unstamped, and it appeared that A. had actually received only 16. 15s. 6d., the residue of the 201. being retained by the agent of the trustees for the costs and expences of the binding. The pauper served under the indenture at B. more than 40 days. The question for the opinion of the Court was, Whether the indenture was void on account of the trustees not having joined which the conin the execution; or on account of the consideration-money being sideration paid untruly stated therein? on which latter ground the justices at Ses- by the trustees sions decided in the affirmative. LORD ELLENBOROUGH C. J. to the master Upon the first point, it appears that the money was paid out of the funds of the public charity, and was paid by the trustees in the execution of their trust, and they acted very wisely not to involve themselves by becoming parties to the covenant. As to the other point, the consideration was fully stated. Even if a stamp had ecuted by the been necessary, the consideration would have been sufficiently though the mas stated, for it is stated against the party's interest. - Order of Ses- ter actually resions quashed. tees to be parties, and in was stated to be 20., was held to confer a settlement, though it was not ex trustees, and ceived only 167. 15s. 6d., the residue being retained by the agent of the trustees for costs and expences of the binding. XI. Of Apprentices to Chimney-sweepers.. See stat. 28 G. 3. c. 48. XII. Of Apprentices in Cotton and Woollen Mills. See stats. 42 G.3. c.73. 54 G.3. c.170. § 9. |