admitted in argument, that this was a sufficient inhabitancy under the indenture, as a continued inhabitancy for forty days was not required by the statute (m). So, where a boy was bound apprentice to a shipowner in North Shields for three years, and served on board his ship; and during the first year the ship lay a month in the township of Middlesborough, and in the second year five weeks, during which time the apprentice slept on board; but it was objected that he gained no settlement thereby, because he had not slept forty nights in the township in any one year: the court, however, held it to be sufficient; although in hiring and service it is necessary that the forty days' residence should be within the compass of a year, yet it is not so in the case of apprenticeship, the statute having no reference to the term of a year (n).

Nor is it required that the inhabitancy should be in the parish in which the apprentice was bound, or in which the master's permanent residence is situate. Thus, where a woman settled at St. Saviour's took a girl apprentice, and afterwards rented a lodging in St. Bride's, where the girl resided with and served her more than forty days: the court held that the girl gained her settlement in St. Bride's by this binding and inhabitancy, although her mistress were not settled there (o). So, where a poor girl, settled in Stoke Fleming, was apprenticed to a woman who was then a settled inhabitant and an owner of lands in that parish; she served two years there, when her mistress went to reside with her son in Berry Pomroy, and she served her and resided there for the remainder of her apprenticeship: the court held that the apprentice, though not bound in the parish of Berry Pomroy, gained her settlement there, by inhabiting and serving her mistress there during the last forty days of her apprenticeship (p). So, where a boy was bound as a parish apprentice to a cordwainer at Chelmsford, and served him there five years; both master and apprentice were then appointed to the permanent staff of the Essex local militia, the master as sergeant and the apprentice as drummer, and they removed to Braintree as the head-quarters of the regiment; here the apprentice continued to serve his master until the end of his apprenticeship, receiving his pay as a soldier and his wages (though not his full wages) from his master: it was objected that his service as a soldier was incompatible with his service at a trade, and therefore his residence at Braintree was not an inhabitancy under the indenture: but the court over-ruled the objection, and said that as the apprentice

(m) R. v. Gainsborough, Burr. S. C. 586. S. P. R. v. Cirencester, 1 Str. 579.

(n) R. v. Aldstone, 2 B. & Ad. 207.

(0) St. Bride's v. St. Saviour's, 2 Salk. 533.

(p) Stoke Fleming v. Berry Pomroy, 2 Bott, 392.

served his master and resided in Braintree during the last forty days of his apprenticeship, he gained his settlement there (q). And where the apprentice thus inhabits in the same parish with his master, it is immaterial whether he be employed in doing any service for his master or not, provided his inhabitancy have relation to the indenture. Therefore, where a boy was apprenticed by the trustees of a charity to his own step-father, a bricklayer, for seven years, and lived with him all that time, but was never taught the trade, nor did he ever work at it, but he hired to and worked with other persons in the same parish, with his step-father's consent: the court held, that as he resided with his master, he gained a settlement by his apprenticeship (r). So, where a farmer in Knowstone took a parish apprentice, and his landlord agreed to indemnify him if the overseers should require him to take more; the overseers afterwards obliged him to take the pauper, and he thereupon applied to the executrix of the landlord, who took the pauper into her service: the pauper then served her, and resided in Roseash two or three years, then in the parish of Charles three years, when becoming a cripple by losing his feet, she sent him back to his master in Knowstone; the master at first refused to receive him, but upon the executrix undertaking to indemnify him, he put the pauper to board and lodge with his grandmother in Knowstone, where he remained until his apprenticeship expired, which was more than forty days: the court held that he gained his settlement in Knowstone by inhabiting there the last forty days; it was no casual residence, but a residence in the very parish with his master (s).

It is not necessary, however, that the apprentice should inhabit in the same parish with his master, or even in the parish in which his services are performed. Therefore, where an apprentice served his master in St. John's, but always slept at his father's in St. James's: the court held that he gained his settlement in the latter parish; an apprentice gains his settlement in the parish in which he sleeps, and not in that in which he merely serves, for serving in a parish without sleeping there, is not an inhabiting within the meaning of the statute (t). So, where an apprentice to the master of a ship served on shore during the day-time in the parish of St. Mary, Colechurch, and at night slept on board the ship in the parish of Radcliffe: the court held that he gained his settlement in the latter parish; serving in a parish is not inhabiting there, but a man is said to inhabit where he sleeps (u). So, where a

(q) R. v. Chelmsford, 3 B. & A.

411.

(r) R. v. Burslem, MS. M. 1839; 11 Ad. & El. 52.

(8) R. v. Charles, Burr. S. C. 706.

(t) St. John the Baptist v. St. James's, 1 Str. 594. S. P. R. v. St. Olave's, Jewry, 2 Bott, 390.

(u) St. Mary, Colechurch, v. Radcliffe, 1 Str. C0; Fort. 306.

boy was apprenticed to the owner of a ship, and served, sleeping always on board; the master lived in the parish of Bridport, but the ship was employed in the coasting trade from Bridport harbour (which was in the parish of Burton Bradstock), and lay in that harbour often for a fortnight, sometimes for a month, and once for more than forty days, but never in any other port so long, and the last eighteen days of the apprenticeship she also lay in that harbour: the court held that the apprentice gained his settlement in Barton Bradstock; the parish in which the pauper lay, whether on shipboard or on land, was that in which be gained his settlement (c). So, where the pauper, an Englishman, when at Newfoundland, was there bound an apprentice for three years as a sailor to Messrs. Colborne and Son, who were also Eng lishmen, having mercantile establishments at Newfoundland and in England, and occasionally residing at each; he served the three years on board one of their ships, and during more than forty days, in the parish of St. James, in Poole, Dorsetshire the court held that the pauper thereby gained a settlement in the parish of St. James, and that it was unnecessary to give any evidence to show that the indenture was in conformity with the law of Newfoundland (d). So, where the pauper was bound apprentice for seven years, to a hatter in Castleton, and served; during four years and a half he dieted and lodged there with his master; but then marrying a girl at Hundersfield, he slept there during the remainder of his apprenticeship, with his master's knowledge, but without asking his consent, and he served and dieted with his master at Castleton as usual: the court held that he gained his settlement in Hundersfield, where he slept the last forty nights of his apprenticeship (e).

But where the apprentice thus resides in a separate parish from his master, he must at the same time be working for his master, or his residence there must have some reference to the indenture, to render it an inhabitation within the meaning of the Act. And therefore, where a boy was apprenticed to a shipowner, at annual wages, and when engaged with the ship he was to be provided for by his master, but whilst the ship was laid up for the winter he was allowed 6s. a week, and was to provide for himself; the master resided at Whitby, but the boy, whilst the ship was laid up for the winter, resided with his friends at Brotton, not doing any work for his master, though liable to be called upon to do so; the last night of his apprenticeship he slept at Brotton, and more than thirty-nine

(c) R. v. Burton Bradstock, Burr. S. C. 531.

(d) R. v. Closworth, 6 Ad. & El.

(e) R. v. Castleton, Burr. S. C. 569.

nights at other times during it: the court held that he gained no settlement at Brotton, as his residence there was not connected with any service under the indenture (ƒ). So, where a boy was apprenticed for four years to the master of a small vessel trading on the river Ouse; he slept on board more than forty nights at Selby, and, when ill of a fever, more than forty nights at his mother's house at Barmby in the Marsh, and the last night of his apprenticeship he also slept at Barmby with his master's consent: the court held that he gained no settlement in Barmby; his residence there on account of illness, was not an inhabitation as an apprentice within the meaning of the Act (g.) So, where an apprentice to a master mariner, having served him more than forty days in Milford, fell sick, and with his master's consent he went to his father's at Bewley, where he remained ill more than forty days, and up to the time of his removal by order of the justices: the court held that the settlement was at Milford not at Bewley (h). So, where a boy, apprenticed to the master of a ship for five years, made three voyages in her, and the ship being laid up in dock for repairs, his master gave him the option either of being assigned to another master, or going back to the school where he had been previously to his being apprenticed, until the ship should be ready, and he chose the latter; he accordingly went back to school, remained there a year, and then ran away, never afterwards returning to his master; his master was not to pay for his schooling, nor did he pay him wages from the time he left him: the court held that the apprentice gained no settlement in the parish in which the school was situate; where an apprentice is absent from his master, the service must be going on, either actually or constructively, to confer a settlement, and which was not so in this case (i). Where an apprentice served and slept at his master's at Ilkeston during the week, but on Saturday and Sunday nights, with his master's permission, he slept at his father's in the parish of Radford, and slept there the last night of the apprenticeship: the court held that he gained no settlement in Radford; the inhabitation must be in the character of an apprentice, and in some way or other in furtherance of the object of the apprenticeship; but an inhabitation by indulgence, as this was, is not within the statute (k). Where, however, an apprentice, having his thumb disabled by scrofula, went to reside at his mother's at old Stratford, an adjoining parish, to have it cured,

(f) R. v. Brotton, 4 B. & A. 84. (g) R. v. Barmby in the Marsh, 7 East, 381.

(h) R. v. Titchfield, Burr. S. C.

(i) R. v. St. Mary, Bredin, 2 B. & A. 382.

(k) R. v. Ilkeston, 4 B. & C. 04.

and continued there more than forty days, not able to work at his trade, but going almost daily to his master, and going upon errands for him, &c.: the court held that as he did serve his master, though not at his trade, during his residence at Old Stratford, he gained a settlement there (71). So where a boy, apprenticed to a barge master at Foulness, served on board a barge belonging to his master and another, trading between Foulness and London; upon the last voyage to London, the master absconded and was never afterwards heard of; the apprentice returned to Foulness with the barge, and slept there on board two nights, having previously slept there thirty-five nights at different times; but then becoming ill, his master's wife, having no accommodation for him in her own house, had him removed to the poor house, and supported him there at her expense for three weeks, in expecta tion of her husband coming home: the court held that as the husband's absconding did not put an end to the contract, the residence of the apprentice in the poor house, he being maintained there by the master's wife, for the purpose of continuing the service when the master should return, was an inhabiting under the indenture, and that the apprentice therefore gained a settlement in Foulness (m). So, where the pauper was apprenticed to a cork-cutter in Banbury, for seven years, and a premium of 217. paid with him, the master covenanting to find him in meat, clothing, lodging, &c., during the term; after working with the master seven weeks, the pauper got a weakness in his eyes, which rendered him incapable of working, and the master sent him home to his father who resided at Kingsutton, and was receiving parish relief there, the master agreeing to give him two gross of corks a week, of the value of 28. per gross, to maintain him: he lived thus with his father about four years, and until he was discharged from the indenture by the order of two justices, selling the corks he received from his master on his own account, working for any person who employed him, but doing no work whatever for his master: the court held, that the settlement was thereby gained in Kingsutton, and not in Banbury; the residence of the pauper at Kingsutton was sufficiently connected with the indenture for this purpose, as the master, by the indenture, was bound to teach the pauper and maintain him, and although he did not teach him at Kingsutton, he maintained him there (n). So, where a parish apprentice, being disabled by an accident, was taken to his father's house in another parish by his master, in order that he might have the attendance of a surgeon; and the master employed him, while remaining there, in disposing

(1) R. v. Stratford-upon-Avon, 11 East, 176.

(m) R. v. Foulness, 6 M. & S. 351. (n) R. v. Banbury, 3 B. & Ad.