watering place during the last forty days, a setgained there.

servant be at a

tlement will be

was at Bath with him, Squire stayed several months in his lodging on the Thirdly, Place South Parade. The pauper quitted Squire's service in May, 1768, having of Settlement. resided about four months previous thereto in Furnival's Inn: Furnival's Inn is an extra-parochial place. It was afterwards added, that Furnival's Inn was no township or vill within the meaning of stat. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12, and that no removal had ever been made to it.-Lord Mansfield, C. J. It now appears that Furnival's Inn is not a vill within stat. 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. The hiring there lays the foundation for a settlement, but none can be gained there. You must look back to the last place except Furnival's Inn, where forty days were served; that place is Bath; and it being now settled that settlements may be gained at watering places, the settlement was gained there, notwithstanding the Scarborough case, ante, 418, n. (a). Rex v. Ashton, Fol. 88; Sett. & Rem. 23; 2 Bott, 388; 1 Nol. P. L. 420. A servant was hired for a year in Ashton, where she served half a year; then her master, and she with him, removed to Patshall, where her master took another farm; the servant continued with him in Patshall for the other half year. By the Court: Here is what the act requires, a hiring for a year, and service for a year; for it is the same service, and the statute doth not tie it down to one place. If a person is hired to a master in one parish, and goes with him into another, and serves him for one whole year, the parish he continues last in for forty days before the end of his year is the place of his settlement; and the reason why the forty days gain a settlement is, because he comes there with his master, and you cannot remove him from his master; and having continued with him forty days unremovable, he gains a settlement.

Rex v. Whitechapel, 2 Sess. Ca. 114; Fol. 146; 2 Bott, 393; 1 Nol. P. L. 468. A person was hired for five years to work at a glass-house in Whitechapel, at the rate of 10s. a week; but never lodged with his master in the house at any part of the time, but at another house in the parish.— By the Court: he has gained a settlement there; for being hired to serve above a year, and having served and resided in the same parish pursuant to such hiring, he hath fully complied with the statute, and it is not material where he lodged, so that it were within the parish.

Rex v. Hedsor, Cald. 51; 2 Bott, 405; 1 Nol. P. L. 468. Removal from Little Marlow to Hedsor. The pauper was hired for a year to Lord Boston, and served him as a gardener for several years in Hedsor; ninetyfive days before the end of the 4th year, he married a woman of Little Marlow, and from the time of his marriage until the end of that year's service he lodged with his wife in Little Marlow, forty nights, but not successively, but did not lodge for forty nights elsewhere after his marriage. It did not appear that Lord Boston had any property in Little Marlow, nor where the pauper lodged the last night of the year's service in which he married. It appeared that he did not see Lord Boston within that year in which he married, nor had any consent to be absent those forty nights; and that he never performed any service in Little Marlow on account of his master; that he continued to serve Lord Boston several years after his marriage. It was urged if a servant continued forty days in a parish in his master's service, the reason he gained a settlement was, his coming into such parish with his master; but the Court would not permit the servant to gain a settlement where his master had no property, and without his consent or knowledge, and clandestinely with respect to his master, and in fraud of the parish, who might not know were he slept, and therefore could not remove him. In reply, a variety of cases where cited, to show that a man is settled where he lodges the last forty days, although not successive.-Lord Mansfield, C. J. The cases seem to have settled it.

In Rex v. Nympsfield, Cald. 107; 2 Bott, 405; 1 Nol. P. L., 468; the same point was given up as being settled.

Service with the

not in the same place where the hiring was, will gain a settlement in the last place.

same master, but

It is not neces

sary that the ser

vant should lodge at his master's

house.

Where a person,
during his ser-
vice, marries,
and then lodges
with his wife for
the last forty
days, in another
parish than that
is performed, he
nevertheless
gains a settle.
parish where he
lodges. And this,
though it was
unknown to the
master, where he
lodged.

where his service

ment in the

settlement in the

Rex v. Sutton, 5 T. R. 657; 1 Nol. P. L. 471. Case: H. Board- Held, that a ser. man, the pauper, was, about Christmas, hired for a year by Mr. Ker foot, of Great Sankey, to serve in husbandry for 71. 10s., and 5s. more in case the master approved of his service; he continued in that service, until by the visitation of God he was deprived of his reason in November

vant obtained a
parish where he
had lived and
ten months, and

served his master

Thirdly, Place of Settlement,

not in the parish

to which he had been sent as a lunatic, and in which he had resided the last two months of the year's contract.

In a settlement by hiring and

following, when his father fetched him away to his own house at Bold, and
in two or three weeks afterwards he received the wages of 71. 10s., but not
the 5s.; and the father afterwards kept him at home as part of his family
for about ten years in Bold, where the father died; the son all that time, as
well as since, continuing in the same situation. Order confirmed.-Lord
Kenyon, C. J. The cases that have already been decided on this subject have
settled the principle on which our judgment must proceed in this case.
As this is a removal from Bold to Sutton, all we are called upon to decide
in this case is, whether or not the pauper be now settled in Sutton? and
whether the settlement which he gained in that place has or has not been
superseded by a subsequent settlement? for any question that may here-
after arise between Bold and Great Sankey will not affect this case. The
pauper was hired for a year in Great Sankey; he continued in that service
as long as he was capable of performing it; but in the course of the year he
was deprived of his reason, and consequently rendered incapable of dis-
charging his duty to his master. But in the consideration of questions of
this kind it is immaterial whether the servant's incapacity to perform his
service proceed from an infirmity of body or of mind. Where indeed the
servant commits a crime, the master may apply to a justice to have him dis-
charged; but if no such application be made, the relation of master and
servant subsists. In this case, there being no fault in the servant, nor any
application to a magistrate to discharge him, (for which, indeed, there was
no cause,) I am clearly of opinion, that the relation of master and servant
continued during the whole year, and consequently that the pauper ac-
quired a settlement by that service. If he had recovered his reason before
the expiration of the year, the master might have been compelled to re-
ceive him again into his house. It was said by Lord Mansfield, in Rex v.
Christchurch, Burr. S. C. 497, that the absence of the servant on account of
sickness will not prevent his gaining a settlement, and that it is immaterial
whether or not such absence happen in the middle or at the end of the
year. With regard to Rex v. Sharrington, though it was not argued, it
appears that the Court exercised their judgment upon it, and I subscribe to
the doctrine of it. These observations are sufficient to dispose of this case;
but there is another question behind, and as probably the magistrates below
will be called upon to make another order, I will beg to say a few words
upon it for the sake of their information. That question is, whether sup-
posing the
pauper gained a settlement by reason of his service with Kerfoot,
he is settled in Great Sankey, the parish where the master lived, and where
the service was in contemplation of law performed, or in Bold, where the
father lived and received his son for the last forty days of the year? And
upon this question I have as little doubt as on the other point; being of
opinion that the settlement is in Great Sankey, where the service was in
law performed, though the servant did not in point of fact reside there the
last forty days of the year. In general the servant is settled in the parish
where he serves the last forty days; but I consider the residence with the
father under these circumstances as a residence in an hospital. We should
thwart our own feelings, and act contrary to humanity and principles of
public policy, if we were to determine that the father in this case brought a
burden on his parish by receiving his son into his house from motives of
tenderness and affection. And it must be remembered that this is not a
case sui generis; there are others that stand in pari ratione. In general a
bastard is settled in the parish where he is born; but if he be born in a
gaol, or house of correction, his settlement is in his mother's parish. And
I think that Rex v. Sharrington goes some way to warrant my opinion in
this case; for I cannot consider the pauper's residence with his father as a
performance of service with his master; he was there diverso intuitu in
order to recover from his illness, and not for the purpose of serving his
master. I am therefore clearly of opinion that the pauper's former settle-
ment has been superseded by the subsequent one which he gained in Great
Sankey. The other judges concurring, both orders were quashed.
Rex v. Mildenhall, 3 B. & A. 374. Removal by order of two justices from
Mildenhall to Newmarket, All Saints. Order quashed. Case: On the first

Thirdly, Place of settlement.

service, the pauper is settled

where his place of rest is during

such service.

May, 1817, the pauper let himself as a yearly servant to R. Bailey of Mil-
denhall, and entered into his service on the same day. The pauper was
employed by his master every day from the commencement of his service up
to the 5th of April, 1818, to drive the mail cart to and from Newmarket and
Mildenhall. For this purpose he started every night from Mildenhall, and
arrived at Newmarket about eleven o'clock in the evening; and after deliver-
ing the bags, &c., which generally occupied about an hour, went to bed at
an inn in Newmarket, in a bed hired for him exclusively for a year, and paid
for by his master. He slept until about four o'clock in the morning, when
the mail-coach arrived at Newmarket from London, and the pauper used
to get up and receive the Mildenhall mail-bags, and drive his cart back
to Mildenhall, where he generally arrived about six o'clock. He then,
after putting up his horse, &c., went to bed in a room provided for him
in his master's house at Mildenhall, and slept two or three hours. He was
employed during the rest of the day in Mildenhall, as his master chose, and
sometimes, which was about eight or ten times in a month, he did not go to
bed at all at Mildenhall. He kept all his clothes, and took all his meals in
his master's house, and the room and bed in which he there slept were ex-
clusively appropriated to him, and he considered that Mildenhall was his
home, but that he took his night's rest at Newmarket. He kept no clothes,
nor any thing else at Newmarket, and other persons occasionally slept in the
same room there with him. From the 5th April, 1818, until the 1st of May,
he never drove the mail-cart at all, but lived wholly in his master's service
at Mildenhall. On the 1st May, 1818, he quitted Bailey's service.-By the
Court. Here the pauper was, by the nature of his service, compelled to
wait a few hours in the middle of the night for the return of the mail. During
that time he slept there; bnt that sleep was not his ordinary and sufficient
rest; for after he returned to his master's house at Mildenhall he went to
bed in his own room, which was there provided for his exclusive use.
did not therefore go to Newmarket as to his place of rest, and unless that were
so, he could gain no settlement there. Besides, it was for the respondents
below to establish affirmatively a settlement in Newmarket, and if that is
left doubtful, the Court will not quash the order of sessions. But here, in
fact, Mildenhall appears to have been the place of rest of the pauper during
his service. Order confirmed.

He

[As to the evidence relating to this branch of Settlement, see post, Chapter on Evidence.]

(Sixthly)-Of Settlement by Apprenticeship. (a)

The subject of settlements by Apprenticeship, is susceptible of the following divisions, under which it will be treated:

1. Of the Statutes relating to Apprentices and their Settlement.

2. Of the Instrument of Binding.

3. The Parties to the Binding.

4. The Execution of the Instrument.

5. The Term of Years.

6. Of the Premium and Duty thereon, and Statement thereof.

7. Of the Stamp on Indenture without regard to the Premium. 8. The other Essentials of the Contract.

9. Of Parish Apprentices.

10. Of Inrolling the Indentures. 11. Of the Service and Residence.

12. Of Serving different Masters.

13. Of Vacating the Apprenticeship.

(a) See general division of the subject of settlement, ante, 273, and ante,
Vol. I. tit. Apprentices; and Chitty on Apprentices.

Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship.

Sixthly, Of

settlement by apprenticeship.

1. Of the statutes relating to settlement by apprenticeship.

3 Eliz. C. 4.

5 Eliz. C. 5. Who may take apprentices.

1. Of the Statutes relating to Apprentice's Settlement.

5 Eliz. c. 4, 5; 43 Eliz. c. 2; 7 Jac. I. c. 3; 3 Car. I. c. 40; 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12; 3 W. & M. c. 11; 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30; 2 & 3 Ann. c. 6; 8 Ann. c. 9; 9 Ann. c. 21; 12 Ann. st. 1, c. 18; 13 Geo. II. c. 17; 18 Geo. II. c. 22; 20 Geo. II. c. 19; 22 Geo. II. c. 45; 31 Geo. II. c. 11; 20 Geo. III. c. 36; 28 Geo. III. c. 48; 32 Geo. III. c. 57; 42 Geo. III. c. 46; 50 Geo. III. c. 108; 51 Geo. III. c. 80; 54 Geo. III. c. 96; 54 Geo. III. c. 107; 55 Geo. III. c. 184; 56 Geo. III. c. 139; 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 32; 3 Geo. IV. c. 126; 4 Geo. IV. c. 25, 29, 34, 95; 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, 107; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 56; and Annual Mutiny Act.

The earlier enactments upon this division of the poor laws, relate chiefly to the manner in which pauper children should be placed out as apprentices, and the duty imposed upon overseers, &c., in this respect, with a view to the relief of parishes, and the permanent benefit of the paupers (a). The only statute which expressly provides that a settlement may be acquired by apprenticeship, is the 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 8, (post, 245). But the 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12, s. 1, by authorising two justices to remove any apprentice into the parish where he last resided forty days, unless he found security, &c., impliedly made a residence by an apprentice for forty days in any one parish a sufficient settlement; and see 31 Geo. II, c. 11, s. 1, (post, 430.) There are other provisions regulating the mode in which the relation of master and apprentice must be created, particularly in the case of parish apprentices, the observance or neglect of which frequently form the matter of dispute. The statutory provisions on the subject are as follows:The 5 Eliz. c. 4, s. 25-48, contained various regulations respecting apprentices; and prohibiting persons who had not served seven years from setting up in any craft, mystery, or occupation. It also contained many regulations respecting the qualifications of persons entitled to take apprentices, and the term of years for which apprentices should be bound, and as to the mode of binding. These enactments were for the most part repealed by 54 Geo. III. c. 96, (post, 444.)

The 5 Eliz. c. 5, s. 12, enacts, "That from henceforth it shall be lawful to all and every owner and owners of ships or vessels, and to every householder using and exercising the trade of the seas by fishing or otherwise, and to every gunner or gunners, commonly called cannoneers, and to every shipwright, to take and keep one or more apprentice or apprentices to be brought up in the said trade or trades, every of the same apprentice or apprentices to be to them bound for ten years or under: and every apprentice so taken, being above seven years of age, shall be by the same covenants bound, ordered, and used to all intents according to the custom of the city of London; so that the same covenant or bond of apprenticeship be made by denture, and en- writing indented, and enrolled in the town where the same apprentice shall be then inhabiting, if it be a town corporate; and if the town be not incorporate, then to be enrolled in the next town incorporate to the habitation of every such apprentice: and that the officers of every such town corporate shall take for every such enrolment not above twelve pence; any law, statute, or other matter whatsoever, to the contrary notwithstanding.'

Must be by in

rolled.

4^ Eliz. C. 2. Binding parish apprentices.

The 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 5, enacts, "That it shall and may be lawful for the said churchwardens and overseers, or the greater part of them, by the assent of any two (b) justices of the peace aforesaid, to bind any such children (c) as aforesaid, to be apprentices where they shall see convenient, till such man child shall come to the age of twenty-four, and such woman child to the age of twenty-one years, or the time of her marriage; (d) the same to be as

(a) See Vol. I. tit. Apprentices.
(b) One of them must be of the
quorum. 2 Stra. 1110.

(c) This, with reference to the first
section of the act, ante, 29, means,
children of all such, whose parents

shall not, by the said churchwardens
and overseers, or the greater part of
them, be thought able to keep and
maintain their children."
(d) Burr. S. C. 248, post.

effectual to all purposes, as if such child were of full age, and by indenture or covenant bound him or herself."

Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship.

1. The statutes,

The 7 Jas. I. c. 3, enacts, how money given for the binding out of poor children apprentices, shall be employed, and by whom, and within what time the money shall be put out; and contains a provision that if there be &c. not fit persons in the parish to be bound apprentice, then poor children of 7 Jac. 1. c. 3. any of the next adjoining parishes shall be bound apprentices, and then directs what poor children shall be so bound, and contains regulations to prevent the misapplication of money.

The 3 Car. I. c. 40, s. 22, contains a further provision as to overseers putting out apprentices.

By 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12, s. 1, "It shall and may be lawful, upon complaint made by the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of any parish, to any justice of peace, within forty days after any such person or persons coming so to settle as aforesaid, in any tenement under the yearly value of ten pounds, for any two justices of the peace, whereof one to be of the quorum, of the division where any person or persons that are likely to be chargeable to the parish shall come to inhabit, by their warrant to remove and convey such person or persons to such parish where he or they were last legally settled, either as a native, householder, sojourner, apprentice or servant, for the space of forty days at the least, unless he or they give sufficient security for the discharge of the said parish, to be allowed by the said justices.

The 3 W. & M. c. 11, s. 8, (before alluded to, ante, 424,) enacts, "that if any person shall be bound an apprentice by indenture, and inhabit in any town or parish, such binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement, though no such notice in writing be delivered and published as aforesaid. (a) It has been correctly observed in these statutes, that nothing more was required by 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12, to settle an apprentice duly bound, than a residence of forty days; and the 3 W. & M. c. 11, exempts him from the necessity created by different statutes, of giving notice of his inhabitancy. 1 Nolan, P. L. 285, 493.

The 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30, s. 5, after reciting, that under the 43 Eliz. c. 2, it had been doubted whether the persons to whom children were bound, were compellable to receive such children as apprentices, enacts and declares, "That where any poor children shall be appointed to be bound apprentices, pursuant to the said act, the person or persons, to whom they are so appointed to be bound, shall receive and provide for them, according to the indenture signed and confirmed by the two justices of the peace, and also execute the other part of the said indentures; and if he or she shall refuse so to do, oath being thereof made by one of the churchwardens or overseers of the poor, before any two of the justices of the peace for that county, liberty, or riding, he or she, for every such offence, shall forfeit the sum of ten pounds, to be levied by distress and sale of the goods of any such offender, by warrant under the hands and seals of the said justices, the same to be applied to the use of the poor of that parish or place where such offence was committed; saving always to the person, to whom any poor child shall be appointed to be bound an apprentice as aforesaid, if he or she shall think themselves aggrieved thereby, his or her appeal to the next general or quarter sessions of the peace for that county or riding, whose order therein shall be final, and conclude all parties." (And see construction in Rex v. Fleet, Cald. 31; and see 20 Geo. III. c. 36, post, 430-1.)

3 Car. 1. c. 40.

13 & 14 Car. 2,

c. 12.

3 W. & M. c. 11. Creating settlement.

8 & 9 W. 3, c. 30.

Master bound to

take parish apprentice.

Sea service.

The 2 & 3 Anne, c. 6, s. 6, altered by 4 Anne, c. 19, s. 16, provides, "That 2 & 3 Anne, c. 6. parish boys bound apprentices, may be turned over to the sea service as therein mentioned; and contains regulations relative to such apprentices and their masters.'

The 8 Anne, c. 9, contains regulations as to duties to be paid on premiums given with clerks and apprentices. The 32, 33 & 34 sections related to the

(a) “ Such notice," &c. This refers to the third section. See 1 Nolan, P. L. 286, where the reason of this enactment is explained.

8 Anne, c. 12. Duties on pre

miums.