Page images
PDF
EPUB

resided in Chittlehampton: the court held that he gained no settlement in Chittlehampton; not by hiring and service with Verney, because the giving up of a parish indenture to the apprentice does not put an end to the apprenticeship, and the apprentice therefore was not sui juris to contract; and not as an apprentice under the first indenture, because the master having given up the first indenture, could not be said to have consented to a service with Verney under it (o). So, where the service with the second master is under a distinct contract of hiring and service, and not under the indenture, nor having any reference to it, the court will not presume it to be a service under the indenture, and the apprentice will gain no settlement by it (p). So, where an apprentice asked his mistress's leave to go into another service, and she said she had no objection, if he could better himself; he accordingly hired to a farmer in another parish for a year, and served him three months; the question was, whether this could be deemed a service under the indenture; and the court held that it could not, as it was in fact a service under an express hiring for a year (9).

In cases where the consent of a master to his apprentice serving a particular person, will be sufficient to constitute it a service under the indenture, the consent of any person to whom the original master may have assigned the apprentice, will have the same effect (r).

Where the service has been with two or more in the manner now mentioned, if it have been in different parishes, in each of which the apprentice has served forty days, he will gain his settlement in that parish in which he sleeps on the last night of his apprenticeship, in the same manner as if he had served his original master alone (s).

Whilst serving another, after the master's death, or bankruptcy.] In ordinary cases, on the death of the master, the contract for service on the part of the apprentice ceases (t). But although this in strictness is the case, yet the apprentice continue to serve the executor, or if the executor assign him to or consent to his serving another, and he serve accordingly, such service will be deemed to be a service under the indenture, and the apprentice will acquire a settlement by an inhabitation under it (u). Where however the master died, after

(0) R. v. Sandford, 1 T. R. 281. (p) R. v. Shipton, 8 B. & C. 88, ante, p. 562.

(q) R. v. Whitchurch, 1 B. & C.

574.

(r) R. v. East Bridgeford, Burr. S. C. 133. R. v. Tavistock, Id.

578. R. v. Bradstone, 2 Bott, 434,
ante, p. 560. And see R. v. Clap-
ham, Burr. S. C. 266.

(8) See ante, p. 555.
(t) Ante, vol. 1, p. 94.

(u) R. v. Stockland, Cald. 60; 1 Doug. 70.

the apprentice had served him about nine months at Wrexham, and the apprentice served his widow about a fortnight, to complete the work then unfinished; the widow then told him he could no longer stop with her, but he was at liberty to go as soon as he thought proper; and he answered that he was going to his father, who was in the same business at Chirk, and he went accordingly and served two or three years: the court held that this service with the father could not be deemed a service under the indenture, for the widow, not being administratrix, had no interest in the apprenticeship; and that as the apprentice served and resided the last forty days under the indenture in Wrexham, he gained his settlement there (q).

In the case of parish apprentices, with whom not more than 51. has been given as premium, two justices may, at any time within three months after death of the master, upon application of his widow, son, or executor, &c., make an order that such apprentice shall serve such widow, son, or executor, &c., during the residue of the term (r). But if no such application or order be made, then the apprenticeship shall be determined, and the indenture be at an end (s). Where a woman, having a parish apprentice who served her four or five years upon her farm, gave up her farm and went to live with her son in another parish, and the son agreed to take the apprentice into his service and keep him; some time afterwards the mother died, and the apprentice, after serving the son some time longer, was told by the latter to look out for another place; he accordingly, with the special consent of the son, hired with a person in the parish of Field for fifty-one weeks, and served and resided there more than forty days: the court held that were it not for the above statute, 32 G. 3, c. 57, they should have holden that the apprentice had gained a settlement in Field, under the indenture; but as the son, after his mother's death, had not obtained the justices' order prescribed by that statute, the indenture was at an end, and his consent to the service inoperative (t). On the other hand, where a parish apprentice lived several years with his master, and then ran away; his master then died, and the apprentice afterwards hired to another for a year, and served, without any interference on the part of his former master's executors: the court held that he gained a settlement by his hiring and service (u).

As to the bankruptcy of the master, it was formerly no dissolution of the contract of apprenticeship; and therefore

[blocks in formation]

where, upon the master becoming bankrupt, the apprentice hired himself to a person in another parish, for a year, without his master's assent, and served; the court held that he gained no settlement by it (x). But where the master, upon becoming bankrupt, specially consented to his apprentice serving a person in another parish, and the apprentice served and resided there accordingly: the court held that he gained a settlement in such other parish by his inhabitation during such latter service (y). Now, however, if the master become bankrupt, the filing of the petition for adjudication against him operates as a discharge of the apprentice (z).

SECTION VIII.

Effect of the Indenture being given up or cancelled.

In ordinary cases, 567.

In cases of parish apprentices, 568.

When apprentice discharged by order of justices, 569.

In ordinary cases.] An apprentice in ordinary cases, although under age, may be discharged from his apprenticeship, by the indenture being given up or cancelled, if all parties consent to it (a), and the dissolution of the contract be manifestly for the benefit of the infant (b). Where a young man, under age, bound himself apprentice, and served for about a year, when his master ran away, having previously given the apprentice his indenture; the latter, still under age, then hired himself for a year to a person in another parish, and served: the court held that he gained a settlement by his hiring and service; the continuance of the apprenticeship, under the circumstance, would have been most prejudical to the infant and of no benefit to the master, and it therefore was competent to them to discharge themselves of each other (c). In one case it was argued, that giving the indenture up to the apprentice had not the effect of discharging him; on the other hand it was said that there was no difference between an

(x) R. v. Buckingham, 2 Ld. Raym. 1352; 1 Str. 582.

(y) R. v. Langham, Cald. 126. (z) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 170. (a) R. v. Weddington, Burr.S.C. 766. R. v. Titchfield, Id. 511. R.

v. St. Mary Calendar, Burr. S. C. 274.

(b) R. v. Great Wigston, 8 B. & C. 484.

(c) R. v. Mountsorrel, 3 M. & S.

497.

indenture being given up and cancelled: and of this latter opinion was the court (d). Where an apprentice, bound for seven years, served six with his master; the latter, then deelining business, wished the apprentice to get another master for the remaining year, and recommended him to hire with one Edwards in the adjoining parish of Holy Trinity, and he accordingly hired and served: when he had served Edwards about two months, the first master gave him up his indenture: the court held that as he served Edwards, with his master's eonsent, forty days before the indenture was given up, he thereby gained a settlement under the indenture in Holy Trinity (e). It has been already mentioned, that where the apprentice is an infant, the delivering up of the indenture, to be a discharge, must appear to have been for his benefit; but if the apprentice be of full age at the time, it is immaterial whether the dissolution of the contract be for his benefit or not (f). The apprentice, however, is not deemed to be discharged by the mere agreement between the parties (g); but the indenture must be actually given up or cancelled (h). Even where an apprentice under age was impressed into the king's service, and then entered the service as a volunteer, with the consent of his master, but the indenture was not given up or cancelled, the court held that this did not put an end to the apprenticeship (¿).

In cases of parish apprentices.] In cases of parish apprentices, the delivering up of the indenture to the apprentice will be no discharge of the apprentice, nor in any manner affect the apprenticeship (k), if the apprentice be then under age. So, where the indenture was delivered up to the father of the apprentice, it was holden that the latter was not thereby discharged (1). Nor will any agreement between the master and the apprentice operate as a discharge of the apprentice (m). But after the apprentice comes of age, he and his master may agree to cancel the indenture; and if it be thereupon delivered up to the apprentice, it will have the effect of putting an end to the apprenticeship (n).

(d) R. v. Titchfield, Burr. S. C. 511. S. P. R. v. St. Mary Calendar, Burr. S. C. 274.

(e) R. v. Holy Trinity in the Minories, 3 T. R. 605.

(f) See R. v. JJ. of Devonshire, Cald. 32.

(g) R. v. Skellington, 3 B. & A.

382.

(h) Id. R. v. St. Luke's, Middlesex, Burr. S. C. 542.

(i) R. v. Hindringham, 6 T. R. 553.

(k) R. v. Sandford, 1 T. R. 281. R. v. Austrey, Burr. S. C. 441. See R. v. Harberton. 1 T. R. 139.

(1) R. v. Langham, Cald. 126. (m) R. v. Offerton, Burr. S. C. 802.

(n) R. v. Ecclesal Bierlor, Burr. S. C. 562; 1 W. Bl. 592.

By stat. 32 G. 3, c. 57, s. 8, reciting that no express provision had been made for the discharging of any parish apprentice from a master who had become insolvent, or who was so far reduced in his circumstances as to be unable to employ or maintain such apprentice, it was enacted, "that it shall and may be lawful for two justices of the peace of the county, city, town, riding, division, or place where any such master shall live, on the application of such master, requesting that any such apprentice may be discharged, for the reason aforesaid, to inquire into the matter of such allegations, and to discharge any such apprentice from his apprenticeship, in case the said two justices shall find such allegations to be true."

And by stat. 56 G. 3, c. 139, s. 9, after reciting that it may be expedient that those to whom parish apprentices are bound or assigned, shall be empowered to place out or assign over such apprentices to others, and it is proper that such placing out or assignment shall in all instances be under the inspection and control of the magistrates; and it is fit that the person to whom such putting out or assignment shall be made, and also the apprentice, shall be made subject to the ordinary jurisdiction of justices of the peace, with respect to masters and parish apprentices; and that it is inexpedient that any master or mistress shall in any way discharge or dismiss from his or her service, any parish apprentice, without the consent of such justices: it was thereby enacted that it shall not be lawful for any master or mistress to put away or transfer any parish apprentice to any other, or in any way to discharge or dismiss from his or her service any parish apprentice, without such consent of justices, as is directed in stat. 32 G. 3, c. 57, s. 8 (supra); and that no settlement shall be gained by any service of such apprentice, after such putting away or transfer, unless such service shall have been performed under the sanction of such consent as aforesaid (0).

When discharged by order of justices.] If the master of a parish apprentice, or of any other apprentice with whom not more than 251. premium has been given, complain of such apprentice to a justice of the peace for any misbehaviour, the justice may hear and determine the complaint, and may either discharge the apprentice altogether, or punish him by imprisonment and hard labour (p).

So, where any such apprentice complains to two justices of

(0) See R. v. Gwinear, 1 Ad. & El. 152, ante, p. 561.

(p) 20 G. 2, c. 19, s. 4; 4 G. 4,

c. 34, s. 1; 4 G. 4, c. 29, s. 1. See these statutes more fully, ante, vol. 1, p. 109.

« EelmineJätka »