G. Bowman, being the person to whom it hath been so proposed by such overseers to bind such child as aforesaid; and whereas we, the said Justices, have now here particularly inquired, and considered whether such person doth reside and have his place of business within a reasonable distance from the place to which such child doth so belong as aforesaid, having regard to the means of communication between such place, and whether any circumstances make it fit in the judgment of the said Justices that such child should be placed apprentice at a greater distance. And whereas also we have now here examined the father and mother of the said child who reside in the said township to which the said child doth belong; and we have now here particularly inquired as to the distance of the residence and place of business of the said G. Bowman and the means of communication therewith. And whereas also we, the said Justices, have also now here inquired into the circumstances and character of the said G. Bowman, and on such examination and inquiry, we, the said Justices, think it proper that such child should be bound apprentice to the said G. Bowman. Now, therefore, we, the said Justices, do declare that the said G. Bowman is a fit person to whom the said child may be properly bound as apprentice as aforesaid. And we do, therefore, hereby order and direct that the overseers of Aldborough aforesaid, being the place to which such child doth belong, shall be and are at liberty to bind such child apprentice accordingly. Given under our hands and seals this 11th day of July, 1832.

John Williams (L.s.)

W. F. Fenton Scott (L.s.) Copy indenture. West Riding of Yorkshire. This indenture, made the 11th day of July, A.D. 1832, between John Atkinson, G. Athea, and R. Brown, the greater part of the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the township of Aldborough in the West Riding of the county of York, on the one part, and George Bowman, of Leeds, in the said riding, tailor, on the other part, witnesseth that the said churchwardens and overseers of the poor, by and with the consent and approbation of two of his Majesty's Justices of the Peace of the said West Riding, whose names are hereunto subscribed, and one of them being of the

quorum, have put, placed, and bound, and by these presents do put, place, and bind J. Berry, aged fourteen years and six months, (a poor child of the said township whose parents are not able to maintain him) apprentice to the said G. Bowman, with him to dwell, remain, and serve from the day of the date hereof until the said apprentice shall attain his full age of twentyone years, according to the statute in that case made and provided; during all which term the said apprentice his said master well, faithfully, and honestly shall serve in all lawful business according to his power, wit and ability, and honestly, orderly and decently shall demean and behave himself towards his said master and all his family during the said term. And the said G. Bowman for himself, his executors and administrators, doth covenant, promise, and agree to and with the said churchwardens and overseers of the poor, and to and with the said apprentice, that he, the said George Bowman, shall and will teach and instruct the said apprentice in some lawful trade, business, and employment, and shall and will during all the said term find, provide, and allow to and for the said apprentice meet, competent and sufficient meat, drink, apparel, lodging, washing, and other things necessary and fit for an apprentice. Provided always that the said last-mentioned covenant on the part of the said G. Bowman, his executors and administrators, to be done and performed, shall continue and be in force for no longer time than for three months next after the death of the said G. Bowman, in case he, the said G. Bowman, shall happen to die during the continuance of such apprenticeship, according to the provisions of an act passed in the thirty-second year of King George the Third, intituled An Act for the further regulation of parish apprentices.' In witness whereof the said parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. Sealed and delivered in

presence of G. Mountain.

John Atkinson (L.S.)

In pursuance of an act of parliament made and passed in the fifty-sixth year of the reign of His Majesty King George the Third, intituled An Act to regulate the binding of parish apprentices,' we, two of

J. T. Ingham and Pickering, contrà.If the statute is imperative as to a reference to the order being made in the indenture, that has been here done, as in legal effect and independently of the statute, the allowance is part of the indenture-The King v. Hinckley (8), Llewellyn v. the Earl of Jersey (9), The Queen v. Ashburton (10). The provision that the Justices are to allow before execution by the other parties thereto, shews that they are considered as parties to the indenture. Broke v. Smith (11), Jevens v. Harridge (12), Burgh v. Preston (13), The King v. St. Petrox (14), The King v. St. Nicholas, Harwich (15), were referred to.

[PATTESON, J.-You go the length of contending that this would be good if the allowance were on the margin of the indenture.]

If the object of this provision is, as it is said to be by Bayley, J. in The King v. Bawbergh, that the order may be found at a future time, that is effected by a reference to it in the indorsement as well as in the body of the indenture. The King v. Bawbergh is very different from this case. It did not there appear whether the Justices had signed before or after the other parties, nor did the allowance itself contain any reference by names or dates to the order. But if necessary that case ought to be reconsidered, as an undue weight was there given to the word "such" in section 3, which being referred to the last antecedent would apply to section 2. instead of section 1.

struments of binding resolve themselves into two: first, whether the allowance of the indenture of apprenticeship is duly signed; and, secondly, whether the order for binding is duly referred to in the said indenture. The form of the allowance as regards the first of these points is: "We, Justices, &c. in and for the West Riding, do hereby assent and sign our allowance;" and the objection is, that the literal meaning of these words is, that it does not appear that they were in the county when they signed. The answer is, that they being Justices, and being in the county and acting for it, sign, and this answer is in our judgment sufficient. The last objection is, that the order is not referred to by its date in the indenture, the allowance which contains what is required being said to be not in the indenture, and a reference in the indenture to the allowance not making it a part thereof, and The King v. Bawbergh was relied on. But it appears to us that that case is inapplicable, for there the date of the order was not referred to upon the instrument at all; here it is. The essential fact therefore of that case is absent from this; and upon principle also it appears to us that the objection fails. If the allowance is in the indenture, the reference to the date which is in the allowance is also in the indenture; for a reference to the date of an order being equally effectual on whatever part it may be written, and not being the act of any one in particular, the place where it may be found within the four corners of the instrument ought not to affect its validity. If the parties procured it to be written before they executed the deed, whether the writing was above or below the seal, whether on the side or the back, and whether the language of the reference purported to be that of all who seal, or of one only, or of another person, and to be adopted by them, the statute would be complied with. It is almost superfluous to cite authorities to shew that all that is written on the instrument according to the intention of the parties before execution constitutes the deed, and that matters subscribed or indorsed may be incorporated. Broke v. Smith is in point, and the doctrine has been uniformly acted on since. The allowance was intended to be and was written on the present instrument, and signed by the Justices before execution by the other parties. It was therefore in the indenture at the time of execution, and it contains the

required reference. This alone would suffice, but supposing this to leave the matter at all doubtful, the reference to the allowance in, and the adoption of it thereby into, the operative part of the deed, would remove such doubt; and further, the language of the statute confirms this view; for after making certain provisions in respect of the indenture, it goes on to require that the Justices shall sign their allowance of such indenture before the same shall be executed by any of the other parties thereto. The Justices are thus to be by the statute parties to the indenture, and that which they sign is a part of the indenture, seeing that it is an indispensable part, and must precede in execution all other parts. Lastly, the grounds of this decision are confirmed, because instead of defeating it validates an instrument, the words of which shew that the parties intended to do all that is required by law to make it valid.

cost of maintaining the approaches, was 7201.:-Held, that the net rateable value ought to be apportioned between the two parishes in the ratio of the value produced in each parish by the transit over the bridge, i. e. according to the length of the bridge in each parish, which is in this case in equal moieties.

Quære-whether the approaches to the bridge were separately rateable.

On an appeal by the Hammersmith Bridge Company against a rate for the relief of the poor of the parish of Hammersmith, wherein they were rated upon the sum of 4751., as the net rateable value of a moiety of the Hammersmith Suspension Bridge with the appurtenances, the Middlesex Sessions, holden in November 1846, amended the rate by striking out the sum of 4751., and inserting in lieu thereof the sum of 360l., subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench upon the following

CASE.

By an act of parliament passed in the fifth year of the reign of his late Majesty George the Fourth (5 Geo. 4. c. cxii),

ing Rate between different Parishes-Approaches.

By act of parliament the Hammersmith Bridge Company were empowered to erect a bridge across the Thames, from the parish of F. to the parish of B, and to make proper roads and approaches thereto, communicating with the high roads on each side of the river, and to take certain tolls for the use of the bridge and approaches; it was also enacted that the half of the bridge adjoining the parish of F. should be deemed to be in the parish of F, and the other half in the parish of B. The company accordingly The company accordingly erected the bridge, and made approaches thereto on land purchased by them for that purpose, and received tolls for the bridge and approaches at one gate at the entrance to the bridge in F. The length of the approaches in F. was 678 yards, and of those in B. 5,328 yards. The net rateable value at which the company ought to be assessed in the two parishes, based upon the amount of tolls actually received after making all proper deductions, including the

year of the same reign (9 Geo. 4. c. cliii.), certain persons were incorporated under the title of "The Hammersmith Bridge Company," and were authorized to erect a bridge across the river Thames, from the hamlet of Hammersmith, in the parish of Fulham, in the county of Middlesex, to the opposite bank, in the parish of Barnes, in the county of Surrey. By the 66th clause of the firstmentioned act the company were authorized to make proper and commodious roads from the north end of the said bridge, to communicate with the turnpike road or street at Hammersmith aforesaid, and also commodious roads to make a communication between the said bridge and the village of Barnes, and the road leading from London to Richmond, which roads the company were directed to enclose and fence, and at all times to keep enclosed and fenced, and properly repaired and maintained at their own expense. And it was enacted, that the bridge, when completed, should be a public bridge; and the half of the bridge, when built, next adjoining to the county of Mid

dlesex should be deemed to be in the

county of Middlesex, and part of and in the parish of Fulham; the other half of the bridge adjoining the county of Surrey should be deemed to be in the county of Surrey, and part of and in the parish of Barnes. In pursuance of and according to the provisions of the above acts, the company have erected a bridge across the Thames, and have formed, made, and fenced in one road from the north end of the said bridge communicating with the turnpike road or street at Hammersmith, which road is situate in the parish of Hammersmith, and two other. roads making a communication between the said bridge and the village of Barnes, and the road leading from London to Richmond, which two other roads are situate in the parish of Barnes; and the company have not made any roads under the provisions of the said statute of 9 Geo. 4. c. cliii. s. 6. All the roads have been formed by the company upon land purchased for the purpose; and they form the only approaches to the bridge. The bridge and the roads or approaches belong to the company, who are remunerated by certain tolls specified in their acts; and they are authorized to erect toll-gates and to collect a portion of the tolls on the roads, for the roads alone, and the remainder on the bridge; or to take the whole toll for the bridge and roads in one sum, and at any place or part of the said bridge or roads which they may appoint. The tolls which the company are entitled to take under their acts have hitherto been taken at one gate, which is placed with a toll-house at the entrance on the bridge in Hammersmith. For the purpose of this case, it is admitted that one moiety of the bridge is in the parish of Hammersmith and the other moiety in the parish of Barnes; the total extent of the three roads above described is in length 6,006 yards, of which length 678 yards are in the parish of Hammersmith and 5,328 yards in the parish of Barnes. The sum of 7201. is found by the Sessions to be the total amount of the net rateable value at which the company ought to be assessed in the two parishes, such value being based upon the amount of tolls actually received, after making all lawful deductions and allowances, amongst which is the cost of maintaining the roads above described. It is agreed, that the acts of parliament herein recited are to be con

sidered as forming part of this case, and may be referred to accordingly by either party.

If

The question for the opinion of the Court was, how the total amount of the net rateable value at which the company was assessed ought to be divided between the parishes of Hammersmith and Barnes. the Court should be of opinion that it should be divided in equal moieties, the alteration made by the Sessions was to stand confirmed. If the Court should be of opinion that it should be divided in proportion to the quantity of land occupied by the bridge and roads in each parish respectively, the rate was to be further amended by reducing the sum of 360l. to the sum of 110%.

Pashley and Willes, in support of the order of Sessions (1).—The principle adopted by the Sessions is the correct one, viz. to divide the rate between the two parishes in the ratio of the net receipts in each, after making all proper deductions. The bridge is the source of profit; and the roads leading to it only indirectly aid in producing that profit which is all earned by the bridge, and the rate must be apportioned with reference to the situation of the bridge. In The King v. Lower Mitton (2), Bayley, J., in delivering judgment, says, "whether the subject-matter of the occupation be productive of itself, or rendered productive by something brought from another parish, or by being used in conjunction with property in another parish, no difference is to be made in the mode of rating. It might as well be contended that the profits of a bridge which would not arise unless there were roads to it, or of land rendered more valuable by roads in an adjoining parish, should be rated in part only of the parish in which such bridge or land is situate." In The King v. Barnes (3) the same principle is laid down. These roads resemble stations on a railway, or the dam in The King v. the Aire and Calder Navigation Company (4), in so far as these are mere adjuncts to the principal subjectmatter of the rate. The principle contended for by the other side, that the rate ought to be apportioned in the ratio of the length of

(1) Nov. 15, before Lord Denman, C.J., Coleridge, J., Wightman, J., and Erle, J.

(2) 9 B. & C. 818; s. c. 8 Law J. Rep. M.C. 57 (3) 1 B. & Ad. 113; s. c. 8 Law J. Rep. M.C. 115. (4) 3 Ibid. 139; s. c. 1 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 24.