Page images
PDF
EPUB

have defeated its derivative settlement, and acquired a personal settlement of its own. These personal settlements may be obtained by a great variety of methods, as apprenticeship, hiring and service, marriage, renting a tenement, Emancipation, possessing an estate, serving an office, &c. But a child how produced. may also be emancipated from its parents without having obtained any new settlement for itself, or having done any thing to supersede its original derivative one. The cases which govern this head of law are extremely numerous, but the criterion, by which the fact of emancipation is to be collected from them, is as follows: "Ordinarily," said Lord Kenyon, "one of these things must happen-either a child must have obtained a settlement for himself, or he must have become the head of a family, or, at all events, must have arrived at that age when he may set up in the world for himself, having contracted some relation which is inconsistent with the idea of being under the controul of, or in a subordinate situation in, his father's family." (s) And, in a subsequent case, the same Chief Justice laid down a rule, which he observed, would reconcile all the cases on emancipation, in these words: "If a child be separated from his or her parents, and without obtaining any personal settlement, return to the parents during the age of pupilage, such child remains part of the parents' family; but if when, by estimation of law, a child wants no further protection from the parents, and removes from them, such child shall not, for the purpose of a derivative settlement, be deemed part of the parents' family." (t)

A widower having a daughter, placed her at eleven years of age, with an uncle, by whom she was wholly maintained after that time, and with whom she continued to reside after she came of age, (doing service to him, but without any contract of hiring to give her a settlement of her own,) the father in the mean time, having gone out to service: it was holden by the Court of King's Bench that on her coming of age she was emancipated, although her father conceived himself bound to support her if she left her uncle. From the determination of this preliminary point, it followed, of course, that the father was capable of gaining a settlement by hiring and service for a year as an "unmarried man, not having a child," that is to say, a child who would follow his settlement within the statute 3 W. and M. c. 11. (u)

But where a pauper was bound apprentice to a certificated person, by which índenture, therefore, he could not gain

(s) The King v. Offchurch, 3 T. R. 114.

(t) The King v. Roach, 2 Bott. 46.

(u) The King v. Cowhoneyborne, 10 East, R. 88.

any settlement, and during the apprenticeship, he being of the age of eighteen, his father gained a new settlement, and the pauper did not return to his father till after he was twenty-one; it was holden, that the apprentice was not emancipated, and that his settlement followed that of his father; for, said the Court, a separation, while under twenty-one, does not produce an emancipation, unless a subsequent settlement be gained here none was gained; and therefore his settlement shifted with that of his father. (v)

The general rule on this subject has been laid down by Lord Tenterden, "that during the minority of a child there can be no emancipation unless he marries, and so becomes himself the head of a family, or contracts some other relation, so as wholly and permanently to exclude the parental controul." (w) And, therefore, where a minor, having enlisted in the marines, was discharged before he became of age, and returned to his father's house, he was holden not to be emancipated, notwithstanding the crown might have retained him for life. (x) But where a lad at

eighteen years of age was drawn as a militia man, and served for five years, as a ballotted man, returning to his father's house occasionally on furlough, it was held that, by remaining after twenty-one years of age absent, he was emancipated, though his original separation from his family was by compulsion. (y)

§ 4. OF SETTLEMENT BY APPRENTICESHIP.

Apprenticeship appears to be the earliest mode in point Acquired settleof time by which an adventitious, or personal, settlement ment; and first by apprenticecan be acquired. It has been already observed, that the limit of age of nurture has been fixed at seven years, and by a statute of Queen Elizabeth, (2) at that period the children of the poor may be even compelled to go into apprenticeships.

By a previous statute, at the very commencement of the same Queen's reign, the qualifications of persons entitled to take, and to become, apprentices, had been regulated. The changes of time, and especially the progress of commerce, however, had made many of its provisions inconvenient, and had occasioned many of its restrictions and penalties to fall into disuse; wherefore they were repealed by the 54th

(v) The King v. Huggate, 2 B. and A. 584.
(w) The King v. Wilmington, 5 B. and A. 525.
(x) The King v. Rotherfield Greys, 1 B. and C. 345.
(y) The King v. Hardwicke, 5 B. and A. 176.
(z) 43 Eliz. c. 2.

The contract.

May be made by an infant.

Infant must

always be a consenting party, excepting paupers.

of Geo. 3. c. 96. and are unnecessary to be further noticed here; especially as, by the third section of the last mentioned statute, all the power and authority relative to apprenticeships, is reserved to the justices generally, as had been given to them specially over apprenticeships contracted by the authority, and regulated by the restrictions, of this repealed statute of Elizabeth.

The contract itself, by which the relation of master and apprentice is formed; the residence under it, and the effects of that residence; its premature termination; and the questions of evidence which arise on the indenture, severally give occasion to numerous appeals. A few observations, therefore, on each of these particulars are requisite.

1. Of the Binding.-1. The contract may be made by any person more than seven years of age for him, or herself; for being invariably supposed to be for the child's benefit, it is a case, beside the common rule of law, which makes the contracts of infants void. (a) So decidedly is this established, that even in a case where the justices had disapproved of a parochial apprenticeship, and refused to affix their signatures to the order, yet the infant, at nine years of age, with the consent of his mother, bound himself, for seven years, to that particular individual whom the justices had disapproved, and the parish officers advanced the premium, the indenture was supported. An order of sessions removing this apprentice some years afterwards as a pauper, in consequence of conceiving this transaction to be fraudulent, and not to have conferred a settlement, came before the Court of King's Bench; when Lord Ellenborough, C. J. said, "This might be, indeed, a misapplication of parish money, but, nevertheless, the indenture was good; for all the necessary parties to make it good executed it." (b)

The other contracting party, the master, may also be an infant. (c) It is perfectly immaterial what is the trade or occupation. And an indenture by which an apprentice is bound to serve one master for four years, and another for three years, to learn two different trades, is valid, and requires only one stamp. (d)

2. Except in the case of parish apprentices, even if the contract be not the sole act of the parties who are to stand in the relation of master and apprentice, it is absolutely necessary that they should both be consenting par

(a) 1 Bott. 613.-2 Bott. 363.

(b) The King v. Kelly, 2 M. and S. 501; the King v. Arundel,

5 M. and S. 257.

(c) The King v. Petrox, 4 T. R. 196–377.
(2) The King v. Letth, 8 B. and C. 247.

ties, in order to enable the apprentice to obtain a settle-ment by the service under the contract. The proof of that consent, in the apprentice, is his signature, testifying his consent, without which the contract is not a valid contract to confer a settlement, (e) even when executed by the father, (f) except in the case of parish apprentices. (g) But the signature of the master is not absolutely neces- Signature of the sary, because his accepting the apprentice is proof suffi- master not escient of his consent. (h)

sential.

3. The contract must be a written one, and not by Parol contract parol. (i) For a parol contract for an apprenticeship, eo void. nomine, is void as an apprenticeship, and it cannot be Will not ensue converted into a hiring, so as, with a service under it, as a hiring. to confer a settlement. (j)

To this rule, however, there are some few exceptions. Exceptions. The first case which admitted any was the King v. Little Bolton, (k) and that was founded on very particular words in the contract itself. Of the same kind were the two next cases, the King v. Eccleston, (/) and the King v. Burbach. (m) But these form special exceptions to the general rule. In the last-mentioned of these, the contract was verbally made by a father on behalf of his son, adopted afterwards by the son, and was, "that the son should be with the intended master for two years, and should work with him and have what he got, and that he should allow two shillings per week to the said master for teaching him," &c. The son entered on the service, but boarded and slept at his father's house during the time. It was contended, that this was a contract for an apprenticeship, though a bad one, as was clear from its being made by the father for his son; according to the usual course contracts for services being generally made by the persons themselves. But the Court of King's Bench said, in this case there was no covenant from the master to teach, and therefore, it having been adopted by the son, and being of doubtful interpretation, and the session having considered it, upon the evidence before them, as an engagement for a service, not for an apprenticeship, it was not for them to say it was necessarily intended for an indenture of apprenticeship; that it fell within the two or three cases which had been considered as excep

The King v. Ripon, 9 East, R. 295.

f) The King v. Armsby, 3 B. and C. 584.

The King v. St. Nicholas, Nottingham, 2 T. R. 726.
(h) 2 Bott. 367, 371. (i) The King v. Maigran, 5 T. R. 103.
The King v. Laindor, 8 T. R. 379; the King v. Shinfield,

14 East, R. 541; the King v. Mountschelt, 2 M. and S. 460.
(k) Cald. 369. (1) 2 East, R. 298. (m) 1 M. and S. 370,

Stamps necessary.

Full considera

tion to be ex

tions to the general rule, and must be good as a contract for hiring and service, though not good as an apprenticeship.

But where a shoemaker made a proposal to a poor woman to take her son to learn his business, the service to be for four years, the mother providing board and lodgings, and the son to receive half his earnings, and no indentures were executed, on account of the poverty of the mother, the Court held that this was a defective contract of apprenticeship, and not a contract of hiring, and consequently that the lad did not gain any settlement by serving and residing under it. (n)

4. The indentures must be stamped with the proper stamps, as regulated by statutes, (o) of which there are two descriptions; one in respect of the instrument, as such; the other in respect of the fee or sum given, as a consideration with the apprentice. And the deed or indenture cannot be produced in evidence of the fact of apprenticeship, unless it be stamped with the proper stamps, in description and value. (p)

5. The full sum or consideration given, must be set forth in the indenture in words at length, and the duties pressed in words paid on it; (g) and this provision is not to be evaded by giving other things instead of money. (r)

at length.

Indentures of ordinary apprentices.

But it has been determined, that where money was given by the grandfather of an apprentice to clothe him, before be entered upon his apprenticeship, this was not such a consideration as the statute requires to be set out in the indenture (s) Nor where the friends of the apprentice covenanted to maintain and clothe him. (t) And the requisition, that the full sum be inserted in the indenture, means not less than the full sum: therefore, if more be inserted, and the duty paid according to that, it is good. (u)

These are the principal points respecting the binding, on which settlements by apprenticeship, in the ordinary course, are usually resisted, upon appeal to the Quarter Sessions. The apprenticeships of the poor exclusively fall under a different consideration, so far as respects the contract itself; and therefore are necessary to be noticed,

The King v. St. Margaret's, King's Lynn, 6 B and C. 97.
The King v. Edgeworth, 3 T. R. 353.

Robinson v. Digborough, 6 T. R. 317; the King v. Chipping
Norton, 5 B. and A. 412.

8 Ann. c. 9.

(r) 48 Geo. 3. c. 98.

North Ouram v. Ovenden, Burr. S. C. 145.

The King v. Portsea, Burr. S. C. 834.

The King v. Keynsham, 5 T. R. 309.

« PreviousContinue »