Return of premium. dents, in a more recent case the Court of Chan- (x) 1 Atk. 518. and that the bond be delivered up to the plaintiff Return of premium. to be cancelled, and at the same time he ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant his costs at law, or the action upon the bond, and also his costs in that Court." But where the master is dead, proceedings have been instituted in equity against his executors for a return of premium (y). And if the master become a bankrupt, the apprentiee is to be admitted a creditor for a reasonable proportion of the apprentice fee, where the master is incapable of carrying on the trade (z.) (y) Finch. Rep. 396.-1 Bott. 563.-1 Vern. 460.Bac. Ab. Master and Servant, C. ante. (z) 1 Atk. 149.-1 Bott. 563, ante. CHAPTER V. OF APPRENTICES OBTAINING THEIR FREEDOM I. Freedom of a town corporate. By the due service of an apprentice for seven years, in pursuance of the indenture of apprenticeship, he is enabled to set up in trade for himself, any where in England, except in certain corporate towns, where by immemorial custom, all foreigners, or persons not free of the corporation, are prohibited, as in London, from trading therein. Wherever, by the custom of any town, borough, &c. the serving an apprenticeship entitles the party to his freedom, the proper officer refusing to. admit him, without sufficient cause, may be compelled to do so by a mandamus (a); and by the 12 Geo. 3. c. 21. it was enacted, "That where any person entitled to his freedom, shall apply to the mayor, &c. to be admitted, giving notice, and spe (a) Sid. 107.-2 Show. 154.-1 Ld. Raym. 383. a town corpo cifying the nature of his claim, and such officer I. Freedom of shall not admit him within a month afterwards, a rate. mandamus shall go, and if he be admitted, such officer shall pay costs.' Where to a mandamus to the Mayor of Oxford, to admit a person to be free of that city, who had served seven years apprenticeship, it was returned, that he put himself apprentice seven years, according to the custom, and that he covenanted to serve seven years, and not to marry within the time; and that within the first two years he married, and so broke his covenant; and that his master accepted of him to serve for the residue of the time; which he did, but not as an apprentice, but rather as a journeyman; though it was urged, that by his breach of covenant he lost his right of freedom, yet the Court held the contrary; and that though an action of covenant might lie, yet that it was no less of his freedom, and therefore awarded a peremptory mandamus to admit him (b). So, where to a mandamus to the Mayor of Lincoln, to admit A. to his freedom, Ire having served an apprenticeship there, the Mayor returned, that A. (being a quaker,) refused to take the usual oath, according to the custom of the said city, but offered to make the solemn affirmation and declaration required by the statute, the Court held this sufficient to entitle him to his freedom, within the Statute 7 and 8 Wm. 3. c. 34. (c); but it should seem, that if, by the custom of the corporation, a party is not entitled to his freedom (b) Lev. 91.-Sid. 107.Keb. Rep. 458.-Id. 470.659. -T. Raym. 69. 1 (c) 5 Mod. 402.-Carth. 448. S. C.-Ld. Raym. 337. S. C.-2 Burr. 1004. a town corporate. I. Freedom of unless he has served as an apprentice to a freeman, resident in the borough, the non-compliance with such custom would be a sufficient return to a mandamus (d). In general, freemen of corporate towns, who take apprentices, covenant to make their, apprentices free at the end of their time, which they must perform accordingly (e). in trade, and employment of others in it. low II. Setting up AT common law, every person might use or folany trade he pleased, without serving an apprenticeship, and every one was at liberty to employ whom he thought fit (f). If the workman was inartificial, in the execution of the work which he undertook, he was liable to an action for his default, which was considered a sufficient preventative against bad workmanship (g). But it was in earlier times supposed, that this freedom of trade, permitting persons to exercise trades, in which they had little skill or experience, was detrimental to the public, and therefore, with a view the better to train up and enure persons to labour and industry from their youth, and to make them more skilful and expert, we find several ancient regulations restrictive of the common law right of every one to employ himself, and to be employed in any trade or occupation that might be thought fit. (d) 2 Term Rep. 2. b. n. 2.-11 Coke, 53.-2 (e) 6 Mod. 227. 260. Ld. Bulstro. 191.-Skin. 133. Raym. 382. (f) Saund. 312, and id. 6. (g) Id. ibid. 317.-1 Burr. |