given of their having been executed by P. and Co. The pauper during the first two years served P. and Co., and slept in Ribchester. After that period, he was sent by his masters to work for them in Church, and he worked in the works of his masters in Church, and slept there, except on Saturday and Sunday nights, when he went to sleep at his mother's, in Ribchester, and returned on the Monday. Eleven other apprentices left the works at Church on Saturday, and returned on Monday, which the masters knew, and it was the usual custom for the apprentices to do so. The pauper continued to work and sleep in this manner, for two years longer, when he entered into an agreement with Walmley of Ribchester, for five meals in each week; and he accordingly went every Saturday night to Walmley's house, in Ribchester, and returned to the works in Church, and slept there, except upon the Saturday and Sunday nights as before. The pauper continued to reside and sleep in the manner last mentioned for a quarter of a year, until the Saturday before Shrove Tuesday, 1795, when he received his pay, and never returned again to the service of his masters, having on the night before this Saturday slept in the works at Church. The pauper, when asked whether, when he quitted the works on the Saturday, he had determined not to return again, said, that he could not say that he did determine not to return, but that it seemed he did not return. When asked whether, on quitting Messrs. Peel's works in Church, for the last time on the Saturday afternoon, he had formed any intention not to return, he answered that he had not; being asked the question as to Sunday, he made the same answer; and further said, that he could not fix upon any particular point of time when he determined not to return. The pauper slept at Walmley's, in Ribchester, on the Saturday night, and for the whole of the succeeding week, and then hired himself into another employment.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. This is a case in which there was not any express leave of absence given by the masters, but they had been in the habit of receiving back their apprentices after they had gone home and returned, and by so receiving them, they shewed that it was not their purpose to renounce them on that account. In pursuance of this indulgence the pauper went as usual on the Saturday night, and it does not appear what his intention was at that time, or that he had formed any upon the subject either of returning or staying away. He did not, however, return on the Monday; the end and conclusion, therefore, gives a character and denomination to the original act of departure, finis nomen operi imponit. From what was finally done we must collect what was his determination when he first went away on the Saturday. We find that he did not return, and that he did not on this occasion, as formerly, avail himself of the absence from Saturday to Monday as an indulgence. In Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon, the apprentice continued to perform a species of service with his master while he lodged with his mother, which was a circumstance to cover what might otherwise have been an interruption of the service; it was therefore held that he gained a settlement where he lodged. But here it appears that the apprentice, by not returning to his service on the Monday, had not left it on the Saturday under the usual indulgence; and therefore he must be considered as having broken the contract on the Saturday when he quitted his masters' works; and consequently Friday night was the last night of his residence as an apprentice. The settlement therefore was at Church, where he slept on that night, and not at Ribchester.—Bayley, J. It is almost impossible to say that this apprentice was serving under the indentures of apprenticeship after the afternoon of the Saturday, when he received his pay and never afterwards returned. The Court cannot look to what was passing in the mind of the apprentice, but to his acts. From the nature of the service he was only employed locally at the manufactory during the ordinary working days; but from Saturday to Monday he was free from his master. If, then, he was to have that interval entirely to himself, and never returned after its expiration, at what time did he leave his master's service? It must be taken that he left it at the time that interval commenced, for he was not in a condition to do any act of service for his master after the Saturday afternoon.-Dampier, J. Rex v. Undermilbeck, is the only case like the present; but in that Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship. 11. Of the service and residence. Where an ap another parish on account of illness, and while there, is occasionally employed by his master, he gains a settle ment by forty days' residence in that parish. case the master recognised the departure of the servant; for he paid him his wages for the time of his absence. That, therefore, affords a distinction. Here the apprentice was at weekly wages, and was paid on the Saturday; and the Friday night was the last night of his being in the actual service of his masters, under the indentures. Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon, 11 East, 176. Removal from Stratfordprentice sleeps in upon-Avon to Old Stratford; quashed. Case: The pauper, T. Barnett, was bound apprentice by the parish of Old Stratford, to H. H. of Stratford-uponAvon, cordwainer. There was a covenant for the pauper "faithfully to serve his master in all lawful business." He lived with his master twelve months, and then, his thumb being affected with scrofula, he left his master, and went to his mother's, in the adjoining parish of Old Stratford, where he continued till his master went away from Stratford-upon-Avon, which was about two months afterwards. He slept at his mother's house more than forty days, and he never afterwards slept in Stratford-upon-Avon, nor in any other place, for forty days, during the apprenticeship. During the time he so slept at his mother's, he went almost every day to his master's, and was on some days employed for three or four hours in each day by his master in errands, and was always ready at his master's house whenever wanted by him, but was unable to work at his trade in consequence of the complaint in his thumb.-Per Lord Ellenborough, C. J. The facts stated, leave no doubt that there was a service of the master by the apprentice, while he lodged at his mother's in the adjoining parish. He went to lodge there, indeed, in order to get cured, in consequence of an arrangement between the master and the mother; but he continued to serve his master every day; and though he could not work at the trade himself, yet he performed other service, and he might attend the work and learn the trade of his master; he must, therefore, be considered as still in the service of his master as an apprentice while he lodged with his mother. If the mother had lived more remote from the master's house, so that he could not have served his master while he resided at his mother's for the purpose of cure, that would have altered the case, and likened it to Rex v. Barmby in the Marsh; there, there was no service of the master; but here the service to the master continued, and therefore the apprentice gained a settlement by the last forty days' residence in the parish where he lodged with his mother.— Le Blanc, J. The question is, whether he was resident at his mother's as an apprentice. The facts put an end to the argument, for during all the time he was serving his master, not to the extent required by the indenture, but to the extent of his ability. In the case where the apprentice gained no settlement, whilst resident in a different parish from his master for the purpose of cure, he was not serving his master during such residence. "While an apprentice continues serving, all the cases agree, his settlement is in the parish where he lodges, and not where the service is performed." A parish appren. tice and his master, being both staff of the local militia, in consequence of which they resided together in the parish of B. for pauper Rex v. Chelmsford, 3 B. & A. 411. Removal from Braintree to Chelmsford. Order confirmed. Case: The pauper was bound a parish apprentice on the permanent to S. Spurgeon, of Halstead, to learn the art of a cordwainer, and to serve him until the should attain the age of twenty-one. The pauper served the first four years in Halstead, when the master and the pauper went to Chelmsford, and the pauper served his master there for nearly a year. When about two years of the apprenticeship were unexpired, the forty days, where master and apprentice having been appointed on the permanent staff of the the apprentice Essex local militia, of which the head-quarters were at Braintree, went from also served his master: The Chelmsford to reside there. The master had been appointed a sergeant; court of K. B. and the apprentice, a drummer, served the master, and inhabited forty days held that this re. sidence was suf in Braintree. The pauper received his soldier's pay, whilst working for his ficient to give a master at Braintree, but not full wages; and the master refused to give up settlement, notthe indentures, till the expiration of the term expressed therein.-Abbott, withstanding they were both C. J. I am of opinion, that the pauper gained a settlement by his residence under the con- in Braintree. It is not necessary for the Court to consider what would troul of their superior officers have been the effect, if the residence had been separate from that of his during the whole master, in consequence of his being in the local militia. Here he continued to reside in the same place with his master, and continued to serve him time. Sixthly, Of settlement by during the whole period. That is expressly stated as a fact by the sessions; and it is not impossible, that during a great part of the time, he might be actually serving his master. It is not necessary that the party should reside apprenticeship. in a place, because he is an apprentice, so as to give him a settlement there; 11. Of the service for Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon is a distinct authority to the contrary.— and residence. Bayley, J. The best rule is to abide by the words of the statute. Those are, "If any person shall be bound an apprentice and inhabit, such binding and inhabitation shall give a settlement." Now here was a valid binding, and the pauper resided where his master was at the time, and continued to do acts of service whilst so resident. His residence was, therefore, not wholly foreign to the purposes of the indenture, and sufficient to confer a settlement. —Holroyd, J. I see nothing to shew, that the obligation to serve under the indenture was put an end to. His service might lawfully continue, and, in fact, did continue. It is said that the ground of his residence was because he was a soldier; and so in Stratford-upon-Avon the residence was in order that he might be cured of sickness. Yet as he continued to do service for his master, notwithstanding his sickness, the residence conferred a settlement. That case governs the present. Order of sessions quashed. St. Mary Colechurch v. Radcliffe, 1 Stra. 60. A boy was bound ap- Residence of seaprentice to a sea-faring man, and served him for a quarter of a year in the faring persons day-time on land in St. Mary Colechurch, but lay every night on shipboard in Radcliffe. This was likened to the case of the cobbler.-By Parker, C. J. A man properly inhabits where he lies; as where the house is in two leets, he is to be summoned to that in which his bed is. Rex v. Burton Bradstock, Burr. S. C. 531. Removal from Bothenhampton to Burton Bradstock. The pauper was bound in March 28, 1754, to J. Miller, of Bridport, owner of a ship, an apprentice, and to learn navigation and the art of a sailor, and immediately he entered on board the ship, and did there serve John Miller for seven years as an apprentice. The ship was, during that time, employed in a coasting trade from Bridport harbour to other ports, and that harbour was considered by the captain and sailors as the ship's proper home. During that time the ship was often in the harbour, but never for more than a month at a time. On December 7, 1760, she arrived, and continued there till January 22, 1761, being more than forty days; the apprentice, during those forty days, lodging, boarding, and serving his master on board the ship: and the ship was never in any other port forty days after that. On March 11, 1761, the ship returned to Bridport, and there remained till after the 28th of that month, on which day the apprenticeship expired and during that time the pauper lodged, boarded, and served on board the ship as before. Bridport harbour is a basin within the parish of Burton Bradstock, and communicates with the sea by a cut made from it to the sea and through this cut ships enter.-Per Lord Mansfield, C. J. Lying in a parish, is the same whether it be on board a ship, or on land. Casual residences, or accidental inhabitances, are out of the present case. The harbour is stated to be within Burton Bradstock, and the service was bona fide performed there.-Yates, J., said, That this was not like the case of a vagabond strolling from parish to parish.-Aston, J., said, He thought mere watching on board a ship was not a residence within 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11. Nor would a vessel in transitu, accidentally stopping at a port to repair a leak, or any such casual occasion, gain a settlement to the sailors on board; but this was the proper home of the ship. [See, however, the following case.] : Rex v. Topsham, 7 East, 466; 1 Bott, 722. The pauper, when twelve years of age, was bound apprentice as a mariner, to D. S., of Topsham, ship-owner and coal-merchant. He served his master for three years, during which he made several voyages, and returned to Topsham: residing there in the intervals between the voyages, sometimes for two months. His last voyage was in the Reward of Topsham, which sailed to Shields, and from thence to Poole, with a cargo of coals. The pauper remained at P. upwards of forty days, and slept every night during that time on board the vessel, along side the quay. He knew whilst there, that his master was become a bankrupt, and gone from Topsham; in consequence of which he If an apprentice resides in a port to a ship-owner more than forty days in th course of his trade, he gains a settlement there, though his meantime absconds from master in the home. Sixthly, Of settlement by apprenticeship. 11. Of the service and residence. An apprentice not being wanted, went back to school, and resided there: Held, that this was not a residence under the indenture. The indenture the winter, when the apprentice belonged, should be laid by un applied to Mr. Penny, the agent and consignee of the vessel, for money, to enable him to return to Topsham, who supplied him with half a guinea for that purpose. On his arrival at Topsham he resided with his uncle, not being able to find his master, whom he had never seen or served since. It was contended, that the residence at Poole, was accidental; that in Rex v. Burton Bradstock, the fact relied on was, that Bridport harbour was the home of the ship; that the pauper's return to Topsham, by the assistance of his master's agent, and his subsequent continuance there, fixed his settlement in that parish. But the Court agreed, that the residence at P. was not casual, but that he was there in the actual employ of his master in his trade, which in its nature required a shifting residence. That the principal doubt in Rex v. Burton Bradstock was, whether the residence of an apprentice on ship-board, were equivalent to a residence on shore in the same parish, and what was thrown out there in respect of Bridport harbour being the home of the ship, was principally in answer to that objection. And that the doctrine of casual residence, as applied to places of public resort, which had been thrown out in the Scarborough case, had been pretty much shaken in Rex v. Bath Easton. That at any rate, however, the doctrine did not apply to a case like the present, where the apprentice was in the actual service of his master at the time. And that it was clear an apprentice might gain a settlement, by serving his master in another parish, where his master's business called him. That it appeared also, by the case, that the apprentice never returned to his master's service in Topsham, for his master had absconded before his return, and he went to his uncle; and it is expressly found, that he never saw or served his master afterwards. Order of sessions quashed. Rex v. Saint Mary Breding, Canterbury, 2 B. & A. 382. A mastermariner, having no immediate occasion for his apprentice's service, the vessel being then in dock, offered either to turn him over to another master for a time, or to let him go back to school, and the apprentice said he would go back to school and learn navigation; he did so, and resided above forty days there the master paid no part of the expence of the school, nor gave him any wages. He never returned to the ship or his master.—Bayley, J., said, This is a case new in its circumstances, and we are called upon now to lay down a rule, which is to govern in future. It has been truly stated, that the words of the statute are only "such binding and inhabitation." But I apprehend that the service of the apprentice is one of the essential requisites to confer a settlement of this sort. This service must either actually or constructively be going on during the absence of the apprentice from his master; and the cases say, that where the absence is occasioned by illness, which negatives the existence of such service, no settlement is gained by such a residence, nor had the master any control over the apprentice during this period. This case is like that of a master who allows his apprentice to return to his friends, having no occasion for his service. That is a suspension of the apprenticeship for the time, and no settlement can be gained by such residence. Here the service did not continue while the apprentice was at school. Rex v. Brotton, 4 B. & A. 84. Removal from Whitby to Brotton. Order confirmed. Case: The pauper, S. Marshall, was bound apprentice for four years, by indenture of 11th of March, 1813, made between S. Marshall, the elder, and S. Marshall, the younger, of the one part, and Addison Brown, ship owner, of the other part. The master was to provide the ship, to which for his apprentice meat, washing, and lodging during the term, except in the winter seasons, when the ship to which he should belong, should be laid by unrigged, during which time it was agreed, that the apprentice should maintain himself, or be maintained by his friends; and in lieu thereof, the master should pay the apprentice 6s. a-week, during such time as the apprentice should not be maintained by his master; and the master should pay the apprentice for wages 75l., in certain yearly proportions. The pauper, while the ship was laid up at Whitby, in which he served his master as an apprentice, resided, occasionally, during the winter, with his parents in Brotton, accordingly, dur and in the whole, for more than forty days; and he slept the last night of rigged; at which time the appren. tice was main tained by himself or friends, the master paying a compensation. The apprentice, ing the winter, ment. the apprenticeship at Brotton. Brotton is twenty miles from Whitby; and the pauper did not do any work for his master while he resided there, but was liable to have been recalled by his master at any time, if he had been wanted at the ship.-Abbott, C. J. This appears to me to be a stronger case than the one which has been cited (Rex v. St. Mary, Bredin), and that on the very ground on which it has been attempted to be distinguished from it. Here there was a distinct stipulation in the indenture, by which the master dispensed with the service of his apprentice during the winter season, the period when this residence at Brotton took place. The residence, therefore, is not at all connected with a service; but is by the very words of the indenture disconnected from it. Then the case cited is an express authority to shew, that an apprentice, by such a residence, does not acquire a settleRex v. Smarden, 13 East, 453. Removal of R. Gilbert, from Great Chart to Smarden, confirmed. Case: On the 28th November, 1795, the pauper was bound to J. Gurr, of Smarden, shoemaker, as an apprentice for seven years; only one deed was executed, which, by consent, was deposited with Mr. Large, for the benefit of both parties. The pauper served and lived with his master in Smarden till within four months of the end of his term; when his master agreed with one Olloway, of Hedcom, shoemaker, that the pauper should go to work for him during the remainder of his apprenticeship. O. was to board and lodge the pauper, and to pay Gurr 3s. weekly for his services. This agreement was made by Gurr without consulting the pauper. No part of the 3s. was reserved for the benefit of the apprentice. The pauper worked with O. in H. till within three weeks of the end of his apprenticeship; boarding and sleeping at O.'s house in H. during the whole time. At this period, as the pauper was told by O., the parish officer of H. called on O., and in consequence of a conversation between the officer and O., which was not heard by the pauper, O. told the pauper that he did not wish to affront the parish, and that he, the pauper, must therefore leave him, and seek work elsewhere. The pauper left O. on that day, and went to Smarden, where he slept, but did not return to Gurr, nor had he any intention of doing so, as Gurr had not used him well, and he knew Gurr had no work to employ him upon. Gurr did not see the pauper on the night of his sleeping at Smarden, nor did it appear that he was acquainted with the pauper's being there. The pauper went the following day to Great Chart, where he continued to work for his own maintenance until the expiration of his apprenticeship; when that day arrived, he returned to Smarden, and his master and he went to the person who had the indenture.-Lord Ellenborough, C. J. (after stating the facts.) Upon dismissal, in consequence of the interference of the parish officers, the apprentice returned to Smarden for one night, but not to his master, nor into his service, nor having any intention so to do, but merely to get a bed there, as he would have done any where else. Then can this be called a returning into the service of the first master, who was even ignorant of the fact of the pauper's being there? But it is said that the master afterwards recognised the continuance of the relation between them at that time, by going with the pauper when the term of apprenticeship expired, to take up the indenture; but how can that vary the question whether the pauper returned into his services on the night when he slept in Smarden, against the conclusion to be drawn from all the other facts of the case?—There being then no residence of the pauper in Smarden under the indenture, for any part of the last forty days of the apprenticeship, except by coupling the night when he slept there on his return from Hedcom with his previous residence in Smarden: and that having been a mere casual residence, and not under the indenture, the settlement acquired in H. continued there. Rex v. Iddesleigh, 4 D. & R. 332; 2 D. & R. Mag. Ca. 245. The pauper's indenture, as a parish apprentice, expired 24th June, 1813. He resided in Iddesleigh, with his master, till Lady-day, 1813, when he left him, and agreed with Thomas Weeks, of Dowland, to serve him for a month, at 2s. 6d. per week. After this agreement, and before the pauper went into Weeks's service, Arnold saw Weeks, and consented to the pauper's service with him; A pauper slept, the last three prenticeship, his original mas |