By whom.] The contract of hiring may in all cases be made by the parties themselves; and if the party hiring be an infant, the contract, I think, is only voidable by him whilst an infant, and not void. And where a father made the contract for the son, and the son served under it, the court held that as the son had served, he had thereby adopted the contract made by his father as his agent (e). But where the overseers of a parish agreed with an inhabitant of another parish for the services of a poor man, disabled by the loss of a leg, and they agreed that he should do whatever he was set about, the master finding him with board, lodging, and washing, and the overseers paying to the master 2s. 6d. per week: the court held that this was a contract of hiring by the overseers, not by the poor man, and that therefore the latter gained no settlement by it (ƒ). So, where the parish officers were in the habit of allotting poor children among the parishioners, either to retain them in their own employ, or to get other masters for them; and a child being thus allotted to a parishioner, he procured him a service with a farmer in an adjoining parish, who told him he would give him clothes, and that he was to stay with him a year, but nothing more was said as to wages, &c.: the boy acquiesced in what was done, and served, conceiving himself under the control of the parish officers: the court held that he gained no settlement by this hiring and service; the hiring was not by him or with his privity, and he served merely because he (e) R. v. Burbach, 1 M. & S. 370. (f) R. v. Rickinghall,7 East, 372. thought he was under the control of the parish officers, and obliged to do so (g). But where a poor boy, being thus hired out by the parish officers, served; and afterwards, upon his way back to his parish, he met one Smith, an inhabitant of another parish, and asked him for employment, and upon Smith's saying to him, "Are you willing to go with me, and bind hay, or thatch, or do whatever else you are bidden ?" he said he was, and accordingly went with him and served him; but in a day or two afterwards, Smith insisting on the boy getting clothes, and the boy suggesting that the overseers of his parish would give them, they went together to the overseers, and they furnished the boy with clothes, upon Smith undertaking to pay them 1s. a week on account of them; the boy having served a year and more under this hiring, the court held that he thereby gained a settlement; it was very true that where the overseers hire out a poor parish child, the latter thereby gains no settlement; but as in this case the hiring was by the boy himself, and the clothes not given, or the parish officers interfering, until afterwards, he gained a settlement by the service under it (h). As to a hiring by a certificate-man, we have already noticed it (i). To whom.] It is immaterial whether the master, or the servant himself, reside in the parish in which the service is to be performed (k). Whether the servants of public institutions gain a settlement by their hiring and service, is sometimes a question of doubt. Where a man was hired by the lieutenantgovernor of the military college at Sandhurst, not as the servant of any private individual there, but tò attend generally upon the students, and to do whatever else he should be ordered by the officers there; and he remained in the service two years; it was objected that as he had not been hired to serve any particular individual, he was, in fact, a servant of the crown, and his hiring not within the meaning of the statute: but the court said that all the statute required was, that there should be a lawful hiring, and there had been such in the present instance (7). But where the keeper of a county bridewell appointed a man to the situation of second turnkey, at a yearly salary, but not for any particular time, which appointment was confirmed by the visiting justices; and he served the office, and afterwards the office of first turnkey, for four years the court held that this was not a hiring and service (g) R. v. Stowmarket, 9 East, 210. (h) R. v. Dunton, 15 East, 352. (i) Ante, p. 446. (k) R. v. Eldersley, 2 Bott, 274. 557. within the meaning of the statute; he was not the servant of the keeper, or of the justices, nor could he be deemed the servant of any other person (m). It is also immaterial whether the master have any settlement in the parish in which the servant serves or resides, or indeed whether the master have any settlement at all. Where the sessions adjudged that a servant had not gained a settlement by hiring and service, because the master had no settlement: the court quashed the order of sessions, saying that it was immaterial whether the master had a settlement or not; for the servant does not derive his settlement from his master, but acquires it by his service (n). As to a hiring to a certificate-man, we have already noticed it (o). For what purpose.] The contract must be a contract of hiring, such as to create the relation of master and servant between the parties, and not merely a contract creating the relation of master and scholar. Wherever the contract, either expressly or impliedly, binds the master to teach the hiring party some trade or mystery, &c., so that the latter might maintain an action against the master if he afterwards refused or neglected to teach him,-it is a contract of apprenticeship, though perhaps imperfect or defective as not being by indenture, and the hiring party cannot acquire any settlement by it as by a hiring and service. Where a gentleman put his footboy to a barber in Chesterfield for a year, to learn to shave, the gentleman paying the barber money for it,-and the footboy served accordingly the court held that he was a scholar, not a servant to the barber, and therefore gained no settlement by the service (p). So, where the father of a boy agreed verbally with a shoemaker, to give him a guinea for teaching the boy his trade for a year, and the boy served him during the year: the court held that this agreement created the relation merely of master and scholar between the parties, and not that of master and servant, and that the boy therefore gained no settlement by his service (q). So, where the father of a boy agreed with a stocking-weaver to teach his son to weave stockings for one year, for the sum of two guineas, the son to have what he earned, and to pay the master for the use of the frame, &c. the court held that the boy gained no settlement by his service under this contract; it bound the master to teach, but it did not bind the boy to serve (r). So, where by an agreement in writing, not under seal, between a boy and his father of the one part, and a cotton-weaver of the other, the boy agreed to serve the weaver for three years, and to have half his earnings, and the weaver expressly agreed to teach him his business: the court held this to be a defective contract of apprenticeship, and that the boy therefore gained no settlement under it (q). So, where a master shoemaker proposed to a poor woman to take her son to learn his business; he was to serve for four years, to board and lodge with his mother, and to have half his earnings; but no indentures were executed, on account of the poverty of the mother: the court held that the son acquired no settlement by serving under this agreement, as it amounted to an imperfect contract of apprenticeship, and not to a hiring (r). But in R. v. Little Bolton, it appeared that the pauper having asked a weaver if he would teach him to weave counterpanes, the latter agreed to do so, if the pauper would work for him two or three years, and give him half his earnings; and upon these terms the pauper worked for him a year and a half: the court at first decided that this was an imperfect apprenticeship, and not a hiring and service; but in a few days afterwards, they altered their opinion, and decided that it was a hiring within the meaning of the statute, as at the time of making the contract nothing had been said as to the pauper serving as an apprentice (s). In a subsequent case, precisely similar, the court said that were it not for the case of R. v. Little Bolton, they should incline to think it a case of defective apprenticeship, the master having agreed to teach the party his trade, and the boy not being bound to anything ultra his employment in that trade; but as the court in R. v. Little Bolton had decided otherwise, they thought themselves bound by that decision (t). And in a still more modern case, where it appeared that the pauper's father had agreed with a framework knitter that the pauper should be with him and work for him for two years, to have what he could earn, and the master should have out of his earnings 18. a week for teaching him his business, 9d. for the rent of a frame, and 3d. for the standing of it: the court held this not to be an apprenticeship, but a hiring within the meaning of the Act, and that the pauper therefore gained a settlement by a service under it (u). But in a recent case, where the father of a boy agreed with a tailor that the boy should serve him for four years, to learn his business, for his board and lodging, and also 2s. 6d. per week during the last two years: the court held it to be an imperfect apprenticeship, and not a hiring and service, although it appeared that the master (q) R. v. Nether Knutsford, 1 B. & Ad. 726. (r) R. v. St. Margaret's, King's Lynn, 6 B. & C. 97, (4) R. v. Little Bolton, Cald. 867. (t) R. v. Eccleston, 2 East, 298. (u) R. v. Burbach, 1 M. & S. 370. had expressly refused to take him as an apprentice, for fear, as he said, of offending the farmers (v). And in a still more recent case, where the pauper agreed with a sawyer for a year, to learn sawing, and was to have 78. out of every 20s. earned by him and his master: he served that year; he then agreed again for another year, during which he was to receive 88. out of every 208., and he served accordingly: the court held that the pauper gained no settlement by this service; the relation between him and his master was not that of master and servant, but that of master and apprentice, the contract to learn upon one part, implying a contract to teach upon the other; and as to the contract for the second year, it was in substance the same as the first, varying only in the wages (w). And in a still more recent case, it appeared that the pauper, at the age of twenty-one, agreed by parol with one Williams, a master flannel manufacturer in Newtown, for three years, to learn the art of weaving flannel; he was to board and lodge himself, and was to be paid one half of his earnings, the other half to go to his master for teaching him the art of weaving; he remained with his master but six weeks, having in that time woven two pieces of flannel, when he left by consent; he then made a similar agreement with one Evans, another master flannel manufacturer at Newtown, he agreeing to go to Evans for twelve months to learn the art of weaving, and Evans engaging to take him and teach him the art of weaving, and to give him half his earnings, the pauper not to leave nor be turned away during the twelve months: he remained with Evans upon these terms during the twelve months, boarding and lodging himself, and residing in Newtown: it was argued, that as it was stated that the pauper could not leave or be turned off during the year, this was a case of hiring and service, and that the pauper therefore gained a settlement by it in Newtown: but the court held that it was an imperfect contract of apprenticeship only, and conferred no settlement (x). Where, however, A., B., & C., entered into an agreement by which A. agreed to hire B., and B. agreed to be hired by A. to serve him for three years to dress silk, at 10s. a week for the first three months, and afterwards in proportion to the work done, provided B. did a certain quantity of work per week; and it was further agreed that C. should receive so much per week for superintending and teaching B. to make him a competent workman: the court (in confirmation of the decision of the sessions) held that a contract of hiring might fairly be inferred from this, and that it was not rendered an imperfect (v) R. v. Edingale, 10 B. & C. 739. () R. v. Crediton, 2 B. & Ad. 493. S. P. R. v. St. Margaret's, King's Lynn, 6 B. & C. 97. See R. v. Shinfield, 14 East, 541, and post. (x) R. v. Newtown, 1 Ad. & El. 238, |