Sixthly, Of 10. Of the Enrolment of the Indentures. (a) The 5th Eliz. c. 5, s. 12, required that the indenture of apprenticeship to settlement by masters of ships should be enrolled in the town where the apprentice was apprenticeship. inhabiting at the time it was executed, if it be a town corporate; and if it be not a town corporate, then to be enrolled in the next town incorporate to the habitation of such apprentice; and that the officers of every such town corporate shall take for every such enrolment not above twelve pence, (ante, 424). [See also 2 & 3 Anne, c. 6]. 10. Of the enrolment of the indentures. 11. Of the service The 6 Geo. IV. c. 107, s. 138, (ante, 453,) enacts, "That no person shall be deemed an apprentice, for the purposes of 4 Geo. IV. c. 25, as to apprentices on board British merchant vessels, (ante, 450,) unless the indenture shall have been enrolled with the collector and comptroller of the port from which the apprentice shall first go to sea, or until the same has been enrolled at some port from which the ship shall afterwards go to sea.” But one bound apprentice to a mariner was held settled by service under his indenture, although not enrolled in the town where the apprentice was then inhabiting, nor in the next incorporate town to his habitation, pursuant to 5 Eliz. c. 5, s. 12, nor with the collector of customs, pursuant to 2 & 3 Anne, c. 6. See Gainsborough v. Weststockwith, Burr. S. C. 588; and per Lord Mansfield.-It would be very hard that the apprentice should suffer for the 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. It is however important, by custom of London and other places, that the indenture should be enrolled, in order to entitle the apprentice to his freedom, and which may be compelled by scire facias or mandamus. (b) 11. Of the Service and Residence. (c) An apprentice may have to serve his master in a great number of different and residence. (c) parishes or places, and may abide a sufficient length of time in each to establish a settlement in each consecutively; but the right is ultimately fixed in that place where he has last completed a forty days' residence under the indenture. If an apprentice be bound to one, with intent to serve another, his settlement It may be proper here to remark, that as a forty days' residence is sufficient to give a settlement under a valid binding, it is possible that the apprentice may gain as many settlements as there are spaces of forty days in the term of his apprenticeship; and where he serves the last forty days, there is his last settlement. It thus appears that he may often gain a settlement long before his master gains one; as where the master's settlement is to arise from executing an annual office, or by residence upon a 107. tenement for a year. He may also gain a settlement whilst his master is unable to gain one; as where his master resides upon a tenement of less annual value than 107., or does not occupy for the whole year where the renting is sufficient in amount. It follows that the master may be removed, when the apprentice is irremovable, by an order of justices under the poor laws; and in such case the master must of necessity apply to the justices to compel the apprentice to go along with him. Holy Trinity v. Shoreditch, 1 Str. 10. Parker, C. J., delivered the resolution of the Court. Ferrer was removed from the parish of Holy Trinity to Shoreditch. He was bound apprentice to one Truby, of Holy Trinity, in Shoreditch, with intent that he should serve Green; which he did for three where he served, years. We are of opinion the justices have done right in sending him to Shoreditch, where the service actually was. It is the same thing as if Truby is in the parish though the mas. ter had no settle. ment there. (a) See division of the subject, ante, 423. (b) See 2 T. R. 2; Peake, Rep. 159 ; and Chitty's Law of Apprentices, 59, 60, 61. (c) See division of the subject, ante, 423. had turned him over to Green; in which case there would have been no question but he had gained a settlement in Green's parish. St. Bride's v. St. Saviour's, 2 Salk. 533. A woman who was settled at St. Saviour's, with her apprentice, by indenture, came and took a lodging in St. Bride's, and there continued above forty days with her apprentice, who served her there. This was held by the Court to be a settlement of the apprentice at St. Bride's, though the mistress had no settlement there. St. John Baptist v. St. James's, Bishop Cannings, M., 11 Geo. I. 2 Lord Raym. 1371; 1 Stra. 594. Binding and serving will not make a settlement, but the settlement must be by inhabiting, which cannot be but where the party lodges. Rex v. Castleton, Burr. S. C. 569; 2 Bott, 526. The pauper, John Holroid, was bound to a master at Castleton for seven years. He worked, dieted, and lodged with his master in Castleton for four years and a half, and then married. After which marriage he worked and dieted with his master in Castleton in the day time; but lodged at nights with his wife's father in Hundersfield, until the expiration of his apprenticeship, which was about two years and a half from the time of his marriage.-Lord Mansfield, C. J. Clearly he gained a settlement in Hundersfield. (The The contrary had been held in Rex v. St. Olave's Jury, 1 Str. 51. authority of which case is very doubtful, though Bayley, J., referred to it. -(Rex v. Ilkestone, post, 489.) Rex v. St. Peter's on the Hill, 2 Bott, 524. The pauper was bound an apprentice to a carpenter, and served two years in St. P., during which he lived, ate, and lodged at night with his mother in St. O.-Lee, Č. J. There is a distinction in this case between apprentices and servants. The statute is, that apprentices gain a settlement by binding and inhabitation, not by binding and service; but servants gain a settlement by hiring and service, without regard to inhabiting. Rex v. St. John's, Devizes, (T. 10 Geo. 1.) seems to me a very odd determination; all the cases I am acquainted with being to the contrary, as St. Mary, Colechurch, v. Radcliffe; Rex v. Graveny. The order of removal to St. O. was confirmed. dence successively not necessary. Rex v. Cirencester, 1 Stra. 579. An apprentice bound in the parish, lived Forty days' res:there off and on for three quarters of a year. Exception was taken, that he did not inhabit forty days together. But by the Court: That is not necessary. Case: J. Rex v. Brighthelmstone, 5 T. R. 188; 2 Bott, 393. J. Humphrey was removed from Wivelsfield to Brighthelmstone. Order confirmed. Humphrey was, at the age of fifteen years, bound an apprentice to J. Soper of Alfriston, weaver, to serve from 3d November, 1774, for seven years: he served and resided with Soper in Alfriston until 9th July, 1781; from that time until the 21st September following, he served and resided, by direction of his master, in a shop hired by his master at Brighthelmstone; he then returned to, and served and resided with, his master in Alfriston until 22nd of October following, when he was sent by his master to the master's father, in West Grinstead, to serve out his apprenticeship, where he resided until 3rd November following, when his apprenticeship expired. The Court said, that the decision of this case must be governed by those of former cases, and that the distinction attempted to be made between the cases of servants and apprentices, could not be supported; but that they should both fall within the same rule, and that Rex v. Lowess, and Rex v. Hulland governed this case, where it was determined, that when a servant lives with his master forty days in one parish and then forty days in another, and then returns and stays one day in the former parish, his settlement will be there.-Ashurst, J. The settlement is shifting until the end of the year, and is at last fixed where the servant sleeps the last night, if there be a residence for forty days in that parish in the whole. (a) Both orders quashed. (a) In Rex v. Rushington (post), the pauper slept more than forty nights durVOL. IV. ing the term, but not forty nights during I I Sirthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship. 11. Of the service and residence. An apprentice, after residing with his master two years, was turned over to a parish, where he served above forty days and returned, a cripple, to his original master, who sent him to board with his Rex v. Charles, Burr. S. C. 706. J. Hodge was bound apprentice by the parish of Knowstone, to John Fisher, of K., for an estate which Fisher rented of Mr. L., who had covenanted with F. to discharge him from any expence that he might incur thereby. On Fisher's application, Mr. L.'s widow and representative (he being then dead) took the boy, received the parish money with him, carried him home with her, and afterwards removed to the parish of Charles, where the boy resided with her about three years, and then became a cripple by losing both his feet. She then returned him to Fisher, who received him, upon her promise to pay him all the experson in another pence he should be at in taking care of him; and put him to live with his (the boy's) grandmother in Knowstone, at 8d. a-week, where he resided above forty days, and then was discharged of his apprenticeship. After which he was removed to Charles, where he served the last part of his apprenticeship before he became disabled. It was urged that this residence at K. was only a casual, temporary residence; and like residing in a hospital for cure. That actual service was necessary, in order to an apprentice's gaining a settlement. And, therefore, this apprentice's legal settlement was in C., where he performed the service of his apprenticeship during three years, and not in K., where he lay ill as a cripple, and was totally incapable of performing the service at all. It was answered that 3 W. III. c. 11, says, only that, "if any person be bound by indenture and inhabit in any town or parish." It says nothing about service, or performing any thing. Besides, might not the master dispense with the service? The cases about casual residence do not apply here: and K. was the parish where the original binding was.— By the Court: The performance of actual service is not the thing material. It is the residence, the inhabitancy of an apprentice, in a parish for forty days, that gains the settlement. And this residence here stated cannot be deemed a casual residence, and therefore is not to be compared to the cases under that head. The boy was bound to F. at K., resided about three years in C., then became a cripple; was sent back to F. at K., received by him, and put by him to live with his grandmother at K., and resided there above forty days, during which time he there gained a settlement. (a) mother, where he resided above forty days: Held settlement by his to have gained a last residence of forty days. A residence merely on account of illness, where no service is performed, does not confer a settlement. But if the pauper, being ill, is put by the master, and at his expence, in the Rex v. Barmby in the Marsh, 7 East, 381. The pauper was removed from Barmby in the Marsh to Selby, and order quashed. Case: The pauper, J. Martindale, was bound apprentice by indenture, 1st April, 1794, for four years, to J. B. of Hunslet, who was the master of a small vessel trading on the Ouse. The pauper slept more than forty nights during his apprenticeship at Selby, at different times, but slept the last night at Barmby, at his grandmother's, in which latter place he had slept more than forty nights, in consequence of his being ill of a fever. He went to B. with the consent of his master, who received him again as his apprentice; and he never slept there except as above stated. The Court were of opinion that the residence of the pauper in B., being on account of illness, was not a residence as an apprentice, and that 3 W. III. c. 11, which directs that if any person shall be an apprentice, and inhabit in any parish, such binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement, must be understood of an inhabitation referable in some way to the apprenticeship. But that the residence here with the grandmother, was no more referable to the apprenticeship, than if the pauper had resided in a hospital or a prison. Order of sessions quashed. See also Rex v. Titchfield to the same effect. Rex v. Foulness, 6 M. & S. 351. The pauper was bound apprentice as a mariner for three years to James Potter of Foulness, owner of a barge, in which he made several voyages from London to Foulness. Previous to his last, he had slept thirty-five nights in Foulness. On the last voyage, his master night in Newhaven, where he lived the (a) In Rer v. Stratford-upon-Avon, considered in this case that the pauper went to Knowstone for the purpose of cure, but that the original master, who lived in the same parish, and was bound to receive him, did receive and place him there. Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship. 11. Of the service quitted the vessel, and was never heard of for the remainder of the three years. The pauper returned to Foulness in the vessel, and continued on board two days. Then being ill, he applied to his master's wife, and was, by her direction, taken to the poorhouse, because she was unable to afford him accommodation in her own house. But she maintained him at her expence and residence. in expectation of her husband's return, during the three weeks he was in the workhouse, it is poorhouse, and only ceased to do so on account of her distressed situation, a residence under having nothing for him to do. He was afterwards supported by the parish. the indentures. Another joint owner took charge of the barge, and another apprentice continued on board, and so would the pauper if he had not been ill.-Lord Ellenborough, J. I consider that the residence of the apprentice in the poorhouse was virtually a residence in the master's house, under a continuance of the contract. The wife maintains him there out of her pittance until it fails, in expectation of her husband's return, and for the purpose of continuing the service until his return.-Bayley, J. In Rex v. Barmby, the apprentice was residing at a distance from the master, and with his own friends: here he was maintained at the master's expence. Why was he so maintained, excepting by reason that the master was under a legal obligation, as master, to maintain him in sickness? If the character of an apprentice had ceased, the wife might have abandoned him, and sent him to his own parish. "habitant of the Rex v. Ilkestone, 4 B. & C. 64; 6 D. & R. 64. Ann Whingates was removed from Radford to Ilkestone. Order confirmed. Case: John W., the pauper's husband, was bound apprentice, by indenture, 22d December, 1818, for seven years, to B. Roberts, a boat-builder, of Ilkestone. He lodged and worked with his master in Ilkestone, but regularly, and with the consent of his master, went to his father's at Radford on the Saturday night; slept there on the Saturday and Sunday nights, and returned to his master on the Monday morning. On the Saturday before the Nottingham fair, in October, 1822, the pauper's husband went to his father's as usual, slept there on the Saturday and Sunday nights, and returned to his master on the Monday, and worked for him that day; and in the evening asked and obtained his master's permission to go home again, for the purpose of being at the fair at Nottingham on the two following days. He left his master's that evening accordingly, and never returned, having enlisted for a soldier a few days afterwards. The pauper's husband did no work for his master on Saturday nights, or Sundays, or at any other time while he was at his father's. The indenture was retained by the master till applied for some days after the pauper's husband had enlisted, when he gave it up.-Abbott, C. J. I am of opinion that the husband of the pauper did not gain a settlement in Radford, the place of his father's residence, but at Ilkestone, the place of his master's residence. The true construction of sect. 8 of 3 W. & M. c. 11, appears to be, that the inhabitation must be in the character of an apprentice, and in some way or other in furtherance of the object of the apprenticeship. An inhabitation by indulgence is not then within the statute. Here the residence in Radford was by indulgence only. There may be cases, and some such have arisen, where an inhabitation in a parish, different from that in which the master resides, may be in furtherance of the service; as where a master cannot take an apprentice into his own house, and appoints and allows him to choose a residence in another parish, so that he may return to his work every morning. But here the sleeping in Radford was merely for recreation, and had no connection with the service. Bayley, J. Where the master appoints no place for the pauper to sleep, or appoints a place out of the parish where the service is performed, I agree that a settlement is gained where the apprentice sleeps, and this was the ground on which Rex v. Castleton and Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon proceeded. Le Blanc, J., expressly puts it on the ground that the pauper slept in Old Stratford as an apprentice. But if he in general resides with his master, and is allowed once a week, as an indulgence, to visit his parents, he does not lodge there as an apprentice; and the case is not varied, if the indulgence is for days or months. Rex v. Warden, 1 M. & R. Mag. Ca. 277. Order of removal of Susanna, wife of George Kirsopp, &c., from Warden to Whickham; quashed. Case: Ι Ι 2 Where an appren tice to an inparish of I., regularly, and with the consent of his master, went into night, and there returned to I, the parish of R. ter while absent; master, with then absconded: habitation within conferred no settlement. An apprentice, working with his master during Sixthly, Of settlement by 11. Of the service and residence. the week in one and Sunday nights at his master's house in another, may gain a settlement in the latter parish by inha bitancy under his indenture. A verbal agreement by a master, "upon being paid three pounds to set his appren tice at liberty, and to give him up his indenture," does not discharge the indenture, so as to fix the settlement of the apprentice in the parish where he slept last before the making of such agreement. George was bound apprentice to his uncle, George Elliott, a stone-mason, about the 25th December, 1803, for seven years, to learn the art of a stoneapprenticeship. mason, and John, the father of the apprentice, was a party to the indenture. The apprentice went on May-day, 1809, with his master to reside in Whickham. The master worked as a journeyman mason, at Ravensworth Castle, Lamesly, and the apprentice worked there with him, sleeping at a parish, and sleep lodging in Lamesly, five nights in each week, and Saturday and Sunday ing on Saturday nights in his master's house at Whickham, to which he went every Saturday, and returned to his work every Monday. The apprentice slept above forty nights in Lamesly, and also above forty nights at Whickham, during his service under the indenture, previous to the 25th March, 1810. On the 24th March, 1810, on a Saturday afternoon, as the apprentice and his master were returning from their work at Ravensworth Castle to Whickham, they mutually agreed that the master, upon being paid 37., should set the apprentice at liberty, and give him up his indenture of apprenticeship. After this agreement the apprentice went home with his master to Whickham, and slept there that night. He had slept the previous night in Lamesly. The next morning the apprentice went to his father, and his father gave him 37. to pay to his master for giving up his indenture of apprenticeship, and setting him at liberty. The apprentice returned in the evening to Whickham, and paid his master the 31. This agreement on unstamped paper was then drawn up.-"This is to certify, that a mutual agreement has taken place between G. E. and G. K. as to delivering up to the apprentice his indenture, this 26th day of March, 1810, his seven years being expired at 25th December, 1810; for which time he, at this period, pays to his master 31. for the time unexpired. Signed, George Elliott." The indenture was not then delivered up, it having, from the time it was executed, remained in the possession of Mr. L., who prepared it. G. K. was nearly, but not quite, twenty-one years of age. He slept in Whickham that Sunday night, and the following day began to work, entirely on his own account, at Ravensworth Castle, where he continued to work about a month, unconnected with his master, and receiving the whole of his own wages; and during that time he slept at Lamesly, not in the lodging which he had previously occupied with his master, but in a distinct lodging taken by himself. The master also continued to work at Ravensworth, during the same month that the apprentice remained working there. G. K., after leaving Ravensworth, went to Newcastle, where he worked on his own account, and soon after he delivered the before mentioned agree. ment to his father, who, giving it to Mr. L., received the indenture from him, and sent it to his son.-Lord Tenterden, C. J. The case of Rex v. Ilkestone is very distinguishable from the present. There the apprentice was allowed by his master, as a matter of indulgence, to go to his father's every Saturday, and to sleep there every Saturday and Sunday night; and it was expressly found there that the apprentice, during those periods of absence, did no work for his master. Here the apprentice returns with his master from their work, and goes to his master's house, where he passes the Saturday and Sunday nights, and on the Monday again accompanies his master to work; having been, in the interval, under the eye and controul of his master, and, for ought that appears, performing all his biddings. He, therefore, slept at Whickham in his character of apprentice, and was an inhabitant of that parish under his indentures. The verbal agreement made on the Saturday, between the apprentice and his master, certainly could not operate as a discharge of the indentures, so as to transfer the settlement to Lamesly; therefore, the settlement was rightly decided, in the first instance, by the justices who ordered the pauper to be removed to Whickham. -The other judges concurred. Order of sessions quashed. Where an apprer and slept at his master's, in Rex v. Ribchester, 2 M. & S. 135. Removal from Ribchester to Church. tice, who worked Order quashed. Case: The pauper, R. Salthouse, when about the age of seventeen, was bound apprentice by indenture, dated the 2nd of November, 1790, to Messrs. Peel and Co. calico print-cutters, for six years; P. and Co. with their know. Covenanted to pay the pauper 6s. weekly during the term. These indentures were executed by the pauper and his mother, but no evidence was C., at weekly wages, went, ledge, on Satur |