Sixthly, Of settlement by 7. Of the stamp, &c. five pound per day;) the said apprentice to receive one shilling per year wages; and Grozer to be absolutely free from the apprentice, at the end of four years from the date thereof; and the said apprentice not to have above apprenticeship. three days if he should have to stand for work. The pauper served and resided under such indenture at Leeds for four years and three months, and then removed to Louth.—Bayley, J. It was formerly supposed that under the statute of the 5 Eliz. c. 4, an apprenticeship for less than seven years was void. The effect of that statute was, that certain benefits attached on a seven year's binding before 57 Geo. III. But the indentures are voidable only at the election of the parties, and, therefore, a binding for four years had been held to confer a settlement. It appears to me that this is a valid indenture, to constitute the party an apprentice for seven years. There is certainly a degree of peculiarity about it. In ordinary cases, the party is bound for seven years, to serve one master and learn one trade. In seven years, a party may have time to learn two distinct trades; and the acquisition of one may materially assist the party in practising the other. The father, of course, is anxious that his son shall learn as much as possible, and that he shall also be under proper control. The object was to acquire instruction. The father prevails upon a master to take his son for less than seven years; but, at the same time, he wishes to provide a person who shall stand in the relation of master to his son during the remainder of that period. He might not wish to take an assignment. This is nothing more than a stipulation, and, in my opinion, a reasonable one, that there shall be an apprenticeship for seven years, during which the apprentice shall be learning two trades; and that one period shall be fixed for learning one trade, and another for another. The whole is one transaction, and requires only one stamp. During the argument, Bayley, J., observed that "the circumstance of the binding being for seven years, was important."-Holroyd, J. The contract is for a certain period, though the apprentice was to serve two masters, who carried on different trades. It will be a good contract if the apprentice is bound to two masters, to learn successively two different trades. The next question is, whether the indenture is rendered void by the stamp act. I am of opinion that it is not void, unless it be shewn that the parties adopted this particular form to evade the payment of duties, which by law they would otherwise be bound to pay. Unless that be shewn, I think we should construe the indenture so as not to avoid it. Now if it was bonâ fide agreed between the father and first master, that his son should have the benefit of a seven years' apprenticeship, that the father should take him at the end of the first four years, he would take him under the indenture, and no new stamp would be necessary. The duty is imposed on every indenture, not with reference to the number of masters, or the number of trades. No fraud being found, I think this is but one binding and one indenture. There may have been two bindings, as far as the masters are concerned, but so far as the apprentice is concerned, there was but one; he was bound by an indenture, to serve one master for four and another for three years.Littledale, J. Suppose that, before the 5 Eliz., a parent, intending that his son should learn two trades, (connected or unconnected,) and had agreed with two persons that each should teach him a trade, there would be no objection, at common law, to the two persons taking the apprentice successively. The statute confers privileges on persons who serve for seven years, but it does not render other contracts void. By the stamp act, a duty shall be paid on every indenture, not a distinct duty in respect of each master or each trade. This instrument does not operate as two indentures, or as an indenture and assignment so as to require two stamps. There was no intention to evade the stamp duties. It relates to one transaction. And if it was originally agreed that the father should take the apprentice at the end of the four years, he took him by virtue of the indenture, and not of the assignment. The 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 56, s. 17, (ante, 453,) enacts, that only two shillings shall be charged upon the indenture of any apprentice to serve at sea, in the merchant service. Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship. 6. Of the other contract. 8. Of the other Essentials of the Contract, and that an Imperfect Apprenticeship cannot operate as a Hiring and Service. (a) Where parties intend to create the relation of master and apprentice, the contract entered into between them for that purpose, can have no force with essentials of the reference to the law of settlements, but as a contract of apprenticeship; and therefore if their contract, from any defect of form or substance, falls short of what it purports to be, it is not available as a contract of hiring and service. If it has not all the legal requisites of an apprenticeship, it is an absolute nullity; and the ingredients to constitute a hiring for a year, or a term of years, cannot be picked out of such a contract, so as by a service under it to entitle the party to a settlement (ante, 371). If the intention be to create an apprenticeship, and the indenture is void, it The defects of form which are fatal to the right of settlement by apprenticeship, have been exhibited in the preceding cases: it remains to be seen in what manner the contract itself will be insufficient to establish a settlement of this description. Salford v. Storeford, 2 Barnard. 39; 2 Bott, 363. Order of removal confirmed. Case: Lineacre had been bound an apprentice by indenture, and served his master the last two years of his apprenticeship at Salford; the indenture was not stamped. The justices judged this to be a good settleconfers no settle- ment by way of service, though not as an apprenticeship. But the Court held this to be no settlement, on the authority of Cuerden v. Leyland, (ante, 463), and quashed the order. ment. Where one is taken as an ap indentures are not executed, it cannot be con. Rex v. Whitchurch Canonicorum, Burr. S. C. 450 ; 2 Bott, 368. The pauprentice, but the per, being of the age of twenty-two years, agreed with a stone-mason that he should take him apprentice for six years, to teach him the trade, and that the indentures should be executed accordingly. He went and served five years, when they parted by consent: no indentures were executed. It was contended that this was good as a hiring and service.-By the Court. Here is no hiring, expressed or implied. A binding as an apprentice, and a hiring as a servant, cannot be converted one into the other. Rex v. St. Mary Kalendar, Winchester, was mentioned as in point. verted into a hiring and service. Where an unstamped agreement recited that the pauper is to be bound apprentice, it was held that no settle ment was gained. If A. serve seven years as an apprentice, and there be no in. denture, he cannot gain a settlement, either as an apprentice or a yearly servant. If, for fraudulent reasons, the indenture is not completed, no settlement can be gained under it. Rex v. All Saints in Hereford, Burr. S. C. 656; 2 Bott, 370. The pauper, Abraham Lewis, when a boy, together with his father, entered into an agreement in writing, not stamped, with Mrs. Tringham of All Saints, reciting, that “ whereas the boy, with the consent of his father, is to be bound apprentice to her for seven years;" she agrees to pay the boy 25s. the first year, the four following years 50s. each, the sixth year 31., and the seventh year 41. He served her two years, and received the money agreed on for the time, then left his mistress; no indenture was executed.-By the Court. An apprenticeship was certainly the thing in view; but no indenture was executed; nor could the agreement be esteemed to supply the want of it, as it was not stamped. Nor can it be considered in the nature of a service; for in that case there must be a hiring for a year, and a service for a year under such hiring. And the binding as an apprentice cannot be converted into the hiring as a servant. Rex v. Margram, 3 T. R.378; 2 Bott, 378. The pauper's mother had made an agreement with Mr. Tyler, agent for the English copper company, who lived in Margram, for him to serve seven years as an apprentice; and he served in the copper works for eight years, and learned the trade of a refiner, and received weekly wages; as also 20s. a year, as a refiner, and he conceived himself serving as an apprentice, but he signed no indenture or agreement whatsoever, nor was any signed by any other person on his behalf, or to his knowledge. The Court, without hearing any argument, were clearly of opinion that this servitude as an apprentice, could not be converted into a service under a hiring. Rex v. Highnam, 2 Bott, 371. The pauper, at seventeen years of age, went to W. Evans, of St. Mary de Crespt, in Gloucester, carpenter, for the purpose of being his apprentice for four years, to learn the trade of a car (a) See the division of the subject, ante, 423, and as to imperfect apprenticeships not operating as a hiring, ante, 371. Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship. penter; but to save the expences of indentures and duty, (four guineas' consideration being paid by the pauper to his master,) he and his master agreed to sign an agreement on unstamped paper, which was accordingly done.-Lord Mansfield, C. J. and the Court held, that it was clear that a fraud was intended; that the pauper meant to be an apprentice and de- essentials of the fraud the revenue; and that therefore no settlement could be gained by contract, service under such circumstances. Rex v. Laindon, 8 T. R. 379. Order of removal of J. Claydon from East Horndon to Laindon, confirmed. Case: The pauper went to Ingrave in November, 1792, and after being one month upon trial with J. Mander, a carpenter, in East Horndon, he entered into this unstamped written agreement: "November 20th, 1792, I, John Mander, do hereby agree with J. Claydon to serve me three years to learn the business of a carpenter; the first year to have 1s. 2d. per day; the second year to have Is. 6d. per day; the third year to have 1s. 10d. per day: witness my hand, J. Claydon, J. Mander. Witness, Robert Beles." The pauper proved that at the time of signing the agreement, he agreed to give Mander the sum of three guineas as a premium (a) to teach him the said trade, and paid Mander 11. 15s., which, with 11. 8s. due for wages during the month of trial, made the three guineas; and that he was not to be, and was not employed in any other work than that of a carpenter. The pauper worked with and served Mander under this agreement the whole three years, and slept the last forty nights in East Horndon, and considered himself as an apprentice under the agreement; but he thought himself at liberty to leave his master if he used him ill. The parol evidence, explanatory of the agreement, was objected to, but received. Lord Kenyon, C. J. The justices who made this order, and the justices who confirmed it, were of opinion that the pauper was not hired to serve Mander as a yearly servant, but that the relation which was created between them, was that of master and apprentice. The opinions of the magistrates ought not indeed decidedly to influence our judgment, as they have referred the case to us; but when a certain opinion has gone abroad, founded on the decisions of this Court, upon which magistrates have been acting, it ought not lightly to be departed from. The first question that arises in this case is, on the admissibility of the parol evidence. This parol evidence was not offered to contradict the written agreement, but to ascertain an independent fact; and I think it was properly received in evidence. That being so, the case appears to be shortly this: in consideration of three guineas paid by the pauper, the master undertook to teach him the business of a carpenter, and the pauper was to serve three years. I am sorry that nice distinctions were ever taken in the determination of cases on this subject; but notwithstanding those little differences, we must consider the whole class of decisions on this point, and extract the principle from them. It is admitted in all of them, that if two persons intend to enter into the relation of master and apprentice, and owing to some circumstance the relation of apprenticeship is not duly constituted, as if the indentures be not stamped, this shall not change the condition of the parties; if they cannot avail themselves of the consequences of the condition in which they intended to stand, they shall not be put into another condition in which they did not mean to place themselves. But when it is urged that this relation can only be formed by using the term "apprentice," it may be observed that the argument would lead to an absurd consequence: for then if the word " clerk" were used in regular indentures of apprenticeship, the clerk would not gain a settlement by serving under the indenture, merely because he was not retained eo nomine as an apprentice; but it would be a disgrace to our laws, if we were obliged to decide according to words, without considering their meaning. It was properly said by Lord Hardwicke, that "there is no magic in words ;" and he said this not as a discovery just then made by him, but as a maxim that was handed down to him from his predecessors. If the relation (a) The fact of giving the premium, seems to be material, as shewing the service to be under an intention of apprenticeship. 8. Of the other A contract of apprenticeship without using the word "ap. prentice;" but a defective con may be formed be converted into a tract of appren. ticeship cannot contract of hiring and service, so as to give the apprentice a settlement. Sixthly, Of settlement by 8. Of the other essentials of the contract. of master and servant be created by the contract of the parties, though they do not use the very words tantamount, it is sufficient. In this case, a premium was apprenticeship. paid by one man to another who engaged to teach him a trade: now, what is that, but an apprenticeship? The term "apprentice" is taken from the French word apprendre, to learn. Unfortunately, Lord Mansfield did not adhere to his first opinion in Rex v. Little Bolton; but even when he gave his second opinion in that case, he took it for granted, that the rule remained unshaken; that if the parties intended to create the relation of master and apprentice, and it were not legally created, so that the apprentice could not gain a settlement as such, he could not acquire a settlement as a yearly servant and in Rex v. Highnam, Lord Mansfield adopted the opinion he had first given in Rex v. Little Bolton, conformably to all the other cases. Therefore, we may rely on this last case, and if it be not distinguishable from that of Rex v. Little Bolton, it is sufficient to say that it is subsequent to it, and that Rex v. Little Bolton is an anomalous case. When we find the current of authorities one way, I should be sorry that a little inadvertence in the Court, in the decision of one case only, should be supposed to break in upon the general rule. For Rex v. Coltishall, which has been cited, is distinguishable from this class of cases; there, by the agreement of the parties, the pauper was to do any work that the master set him about. I am, therefore, most clearly of opinion, that in this case the parties intended to form the relation of master and apprentice; and that as that relation was not legally constituted so as to give the latter a settlement as an apprentice, the relation cannot be converted into that of master and servant, so as to give him a settlement as a yearly servant. And I think we should do infinite mischief, if we were to overturn that which has been so long a settled rule. —Lawrence, J. The first point is, that the sessions ought not to have received the parol evidence, because it contradicted the written agreement ; but it was not offered for that purpose, but to ascertain a fact collateral to the written instrument, in order to explain the intention of the parties, the instrument being in some measure equivocal. The fact being established, the case was this: on the one hand, the pauper paid a premium to the master, and was to receive certain wages; and on the other hand, the master engaged to teach him the business of a carpenter; then the question is, whether or not by this agreement the parties were to stand in the relation of master and apprentice, of which I think no doubt can be entertained. In Rex v. Little Bolton, Lord Mansfield only went thus far; that it must be collected from the words of the instrument, whether or not the party is to serve as an apprentice; his lordship could not mean to say that a contract of apprenticeship could not be formed, so as to give a settlement to the party serving under it, without the introduction of the word "apprentice." With regard to the instance put at the bar, of servants at inns, it is to be remembered that they do not pay their money in order to learn a trade, but as a premium to the master to let them have the perquisites of that situation: but in the case of a trade, the relation of apprenticeship is created for the very purpose of the party being instructed in that trade: the two cases do not bear the smallest resemblance to each other. Therefore, there does not appear to me to be any reason for shaking the authority of Rex v. Highnam, especially as the great body of cases support it. It is much to be lamented, that settlement cases should ever have been determined on nice distinctions; it would be better to decide them on some general rule, that every person who reads may understand it.-Le Blanc, J. If the master, in consideration of a premium, engage to teach the other his trade, it is the same as if he agree in express words to receive him as an apprentice and teach him his trade. Orders confirmed. Rex v Rainham, 1 East, 531; 2 Bott, 383. Order of removal of Moses Smith, from Rainham to Eltham; quashed. Case: The pauper on the 8th of November, 1784, entered into the following agreement with Hills, a sawyer, living in Eltham. "An agreement made the 8th of November, 1784, between J. Hills, sawyer, and M. Smith; viz. Smith doth agree with J. Hills to serve him for three years from the date of the agreement; viz, for the first year 10s. per week; for the second year 11s.; and for A perfect apprenticeship may be constituted without using the word" apprentice." Sixthly, Of s ttlement by apprenticeship. 8. Of the other essentials of the the third year 12s. per week; and J. Hills doth agree and promise to Rex v. Bilborough, 1 B. & A. 115. Where by a parol contract the master agreed to teach the pauper to make stockings during the year, for which he was to receive two guineas, and the pauper was to have his earnings, paying his master for the use of the frame, &c., and the pauper went to learn the business, and continued in the service a year and a half: it was holden that the pauper did not gain a settlement by hiring and service. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said, In this case the pauper never contracted to serre the master; the only agreement was, that the master should teach the pauper for a year. In Rex v. Burbach, there was an agreement on the part of the pauper to work for two years; that forms an essential distinction between the two cases. Rex v. Mountsorrel, 2 M. & S. 460. Order of removal from Mountsorrell to Quorndon; quashed. Case: When G. Swain, the husband, was about thirteen years old, his father made an agreement with one Rawlins of Quorndon, that R. should take his son for six years, to teach him the trade of a framework-knitter, and he was to allow R. 98. per week for the first three years, for teaching him, and his board and lodging. G. Swain served R. six years in the whole, in Quorndon. The Court distinguished this case from Rex. v. Little Bolton, inasmuch as by this contract the son was entitled to none of his earnings, and instead of receiving wages from his master, his master was to receive wages from him as the price of teaching him: it was a hiring of the master to teach the apprentice. The whole contract with the father was bottomed, 'and had for its object, the instruction of the son, and nothing else. Order of sessions, quashing the removal, confirmed. Rex v. Combe, 8 B. & C. 82; 2 M. & R. 30; 1 M. & R. Mag. Ca. 283. Order of removal of Joseph Davies from Presteign to Combe, confirmed. Case: The pauper's father, when the pauper was about fourteen years of age, was about to put him out to service, and took him to Presteign with the in tention of hiring him, but he did not hire him. Shortly afterwards, one John Cole, a carpenter, residing in Presteign, and the brother of the pauper's mother, suggested that it was better for the pauper to go and learn his, Coles's, trade of a carpenter, instead of going to service. At length Cole hired the pauper, from his mother, to learn his trade. The pauper was to do any other work, as well as that of a carpenter. Cole was to find the pauper part of his food and part of his clothing, but he was to be lodged at his father's house. The pauper went to Cole, and served him for five years, lodging in Presteign with his parents, who provided part of his clothing and victuals. During the five years, the pauper did any work Cole put him to do, as well as working at the trade of a carpenter. In the second and third year after the pauper had entered upon his service, a conversation took place the master to A contract merely on the part of teach, without any reciprocal the part of the pauper to work, will not confer a though there be actual service. engagement on settlement, The father agreed that R. should take his son for six years, to trade, and he was 3 board, &c.: tract of apprenticeship, and gave no settle ment. Pauper was "hired" by his uncle, a carpen ter, "to learn his trade," and "was work as well as to do any other that of a carpen ter.", His uncle was to find him part of his food and clothing, but with his father. he was to lodge Pauper served his uncle on these terms five years. At the end of two years it was proposed to draw up exempt pauper indentures, to |