to take it. 1846. The QUEEN V. When the descriptions furnished by a par- Queen's Bench. ticular examination are incomplete for this purpose, we cannot admit proof for the purpose of supplying a reference to something else which may cure the defect. The justices who take an examination must appear by the CLIFFE CULEY. examination to have authority; that is a simple rule. Rex v. Emden (a) has nothing to do with this case: it decides only that an indictment for perjury in an affidavit need not set out the jurat, and that it is sufficient if the place at which the affidavit was sworn be shewn in evidence. Here the question is, whether that which ought to appear on the document itself is sufficiently shewn by it or not. I wished to hear this point discussed, supposing that the case in the Court of Exchequer threw a doubt on our decision in Regina v. Bloxham (b): but that proves not to be so. PATTESON J. I am of the same opinion. It is best to have it fully understood that each deposition should be perfect in itself.. WILLIAMS J. The examinations are not such as the statute requires to be sent. The reference supposed to be made to another document, by the words "said justices" and "above-named settlement," does not bring the case within that class in which reference has been allowed to words in the margin, or some other part of the same paper. Orders quashed. The Inhabit ants of RAT first three months from the commence- the agree- The QUEEN against The Inhabitants of ON appeal against an order of two justices, whereby Caroline Brown was removed from the township of Halifax to the township of Northowram, both in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The respondents relied upon a settlement acquired by the pauper's father, James Brown, by hiring and service in the appellant township. The contract of hiring of the said James Brown, under which the service was performed, was made by an agreement of which the following is a copy. "Memorandum of agreement, made" &c. (7th October, 1825), "betwixt Binns and Wrigley and William Bagot, on the one part, and William Brown and James Brown, on the other part. The former agree to hire, and the latter agree to be hired, for the term of foreign waste, and 3d. per pound for home waste, provided he dressed seventy two pounds of foreign waste for double yarn, and sixty pounds of home waste for single yarn, per week. For all he did, over and above the said weights of waste, he should receive for foreign waste 4d. per pound, and for home waste 4 d. per pound; and for what his work averaged short of the above mentioned weights, of seventy two pounds and sixty pounds per week, he should be subjected to be deducted or abated 4d. and 4d. per pound for each description of dressed waste deficient of the aforesaid weekly quantity. And B. should receive of W. 6s. per week, for superintending and instructing O., in the best manner he was capable, to make him a competent workman: B. to be answerable for the work being done in a proper manner. B. was to receive 4d. per pound for foreign waste, and 4d. per pound for home waste, for his own work, during the time of the agree ment." Held: (1.) That this was a contract for the hiring of O., and not an imperfect contract of apprenticeship: (2.) That it was not an exceptive hiring. 1846. The QUEEN V. The Inhabit ants of NORTHOWRAM. three years, to dress silk. For the first three months Queen's Bench. from the commencement of the said William Brown working under this agreement, he shall receive 12s. per week; and the said James Brown 10s. per week for the first three months. After that time, to dress silk on two frames, each at 24d. per pound for what is called foreign waste, and 3d. per pound for what is called home waste, provided they dress seventy two pounds, each, of foreign waste for double yarn, and sixty pounds, each, of home waste for single yarn, per week. For all they do over and above the said weights of waste, they shall receive, for foreign waste 4d. per pound, and for home waste 41d. per pound; and for what their work average short of the above mentioned weight of waste, of seventy two pounds and sixty pounds per week, they shall be subjected to be deducted or abated 4d. and 4d. per pound for each description of dressed waste deficient of the aforesaid weekly quantity. And William Bagot shall receive of Binns and Wrigley 6s. per week for superintending and instructing them in the best manner he is capable, to make them competent workmen; the said William Bagot to be answerable for the work being done in a proper manner. The said William Bagot shall receive 4d. per pound for foreign waste, and 41d. per pound for home waste, for his own work, during the time of the agreement." (Signed by Binns and Wrigley, Bagot, and the two Browns.) The appellants' counsel objected that no settlement by hiring and service could be gained under the said agreement. If the Court should be of opinion that a settlement by Volume IX. 1846. The QUEEN hiring and service could not be gained under the said agreement, then the order of sessions and the order of removal were to be quashed: if the Court should be of The Inhabit- opinion that a settlement by hiring and service could be NORTHOWRAM. gained under the said agreement, then the order of sessions to be confirmed. V. ants of R. Hall and Pashley, in support of the order of sessions. The objection to the settlement is, that the contract with James Brown is not one of hiring and service, but an imperfect contract of apprenticeship. There appears, at first sight, to have been some fluctuation in the opinion of this Court, at different times, on this point: the soundest view seems to be that, when the primary object is instruction, the contract shall be considered as one of apprenticeship, but not when the primary object is service. The cases are collected at p. 545, &c. and p. 651, &c. of 4 Burn's Justice (29th ed.). In Rex v. Burbach (a) there was an agreement to pay the master a weekly sum for teaching; yet the contract was held to be one of hiring and service. Rex v. Crediton (b) will be relied upon by the appellants: but in that case the contract was, in the first instance, "to learn sawing:" and Taunton J. decided upon the ground that this was the primary object. The circumstance that learning is incidental to the service cannot be sufficient to shew that the relation of master and apprentice was contemplated: in all services the party serving learns something. Now here the contract is in the first instance for service: the intention of learning 1846. The QUEEN V. The Inhabit ants of appears only from the contract with Bagot, who is to be Queen's Bench. paid by the employer for teaching; but that is no more than the ordinary payment of a superintendent. In Rex v. Nether Knutsford (a), which will be cited on the other side, there was a direct contract by the employer to teach; NORTHOWRAṀ. and the ordinary terms of a contract of apprenticeship, such as keeping secrets, obeying commands, &c., were inserted. In Rex v. Tipton (b) the contract was that the party employed should serve Tompson "to learn hist art," and should "be considered as an out apprentice :" yet the Court decided against the settlement by hiring and service with great doubt, and partly because they thought that the sessions, who had so decided, might have been guided by their knowledge as to the ordinary rate of wages. Here, though the wages are low, the party probably was young, and his service less valuable on that ground. There is no contract to teach, express or implied, on the part of the master. Further, the sessions having considered this to be a hiring and service, the question now is, not whether they might have found otherwise, but whether their actual decision is necessarily wrong. [Sir F. Kelly, Solicitor General, for the appellants, said that he should argue that the hiring, if there was any, was exceptive.] There is no exception as to time: the wages indeed vary according to the work done; but that does not make the hiring exceptive. The contract continues, whatever is done. In Rex v. All Saints, Worcester (c), the hiring was held not exceptive, though the party serving went where he pleased after the usual hours of work. In Regina v. |