Page images
PDF
EPUB

$ 30. Any person using the art of a smith, wheelwright, plough- 5 Eliz. c. 4. wright, millwright, carpenter, rough-mason, plasterer, sawyer, lime-burner, brick-maker, bricklayer, tyler, slater, helier, tyle. In any place. maker, linen-weaver, turner, cooper,' miller, earthen-potter, woollen-weaver, weaving household cloth only, fuller, otherwise called tucker or walker, burner of oare and wood-ashes, thatcher or shingler, wheresoever he shall dwell, may take the son of any person as apprentice, albeit his parents have no land.

But now, by stat.54 G.3. c.96. $ 2., reciting“whereas, by the said 54 G. S. c. 96. statute [5 Eliz. c. 4. viz. $ 25—30. 41.] divers rules and regula- 5 Eliz. c. 4. tions were enacted respecting the qualifications of persons entitled to take and become apprentices, and the term of years for which such apprentices should be bound, and as to the mode of binding such apprentices; and it was also enacted by the said statute, that all indentures, covenants, promises, and bargains of and for the having, taking, or keeping of any apprentice, otherwise thereafter to be made or taken, than is by the said statute limited, ordained, and appointed, should be clearly void in the law to all intents and purposes; and that every person that should from thenceforth take or newly retain any apprentice contrary to the tenor and true meaning of the said act, should forfeit and lose for every apprentice so by him taken the sum of 101.: And whereas it is expedient, that so much of the said recited act should be repealed;" it is enacted, “ that so much of the said recited act repeal of part shall be and the same is hereby repealed, and that it shall and of 5 Eliz. c. 5. may be lawful for any person to take or retain or become an apprentice, though not according to the provisions of the said act : and that indentures, deeds, and agreements in writing, entered into for that purpose, which would be otherwise valid and effectual, shall be valid and effectual in law, the repeal of so much of the said act, as is herein last above recited, notwithstanding." (a)

Provided, $ 4., that this act shall not extend to defeat, alter, Not to extend or prejudice the custom, &c. of the city of London concerning to alter custom apprentices, or the ancient custom, &c. of any city, town, cor- of any city, &c. poration, or company lawfully constituted; or any bye-law or regulation of any corporation or company.

By stat. 5 Eliz. c. 5. $ 12., every owner of a ship or vessel, and 5 Eliz. 5. every householder exercising the trade of the seas by fishing or Seamen. (6) otherwise, and every gunner, commonly called a cannoneer, and every shipwright, may take apprentices for ten years or under: and every apprentice so taken, being above seven years of age, shall be by the same covenants bound, or ordered and used to all intents, according to the custom of London, so that the covenant or bond of apprenticeship be made by writing indented, and enrolled in the lown where the apprentice shall be inhabiting, if it be a town corporate; if not, then in the next town corporate, for which enrolment shall be paid not above 12d.

Enrolled in the lown, &c.] The indentures of a mariner's ap- Enrolment of prentice, bound under 5 Eliz. c. 5. § 12., must be enrolled in the indentures un

der 5 Eliz. c. 5. (a) Quære. To how many and what parts of sections 25—30. does the above enactment apply? Semble, to all: see stat. 5 Eliz. c. 4. in the Chronological Table of Statutes prefixed to Tyrwh. and Tyn, 's Digest of the Statutes, p. xliii. (Note to the 24th, edition.) (6) See post, $x.

ters.

5 Eliz. c. 5. next corporate town, according to the statute, in order to sustain

an action of covenant, and not in the Trinity-house, according to the charter of that company; for the king cannot by his charter alter the place of enrolment, but it must be according to the direction of the statute; otherwise the covenants should be according to the common law, and the apprentices not bound by them. Poulson's case, 3 Lev. 389. 1 Bott, 634. Barber v. Dennis, 6 Mod. 69. 1 Bott, 527.

The provision, however, contained in this clause, is intended for the benefit of the apprentice, and as a check upon the master. Therefore, where the indenture was not enrolled in the town where the apprentice was then inhabiting, nor in the next corporate town to the habitation of the apprentice, pursuant to the statute 5 Eliz.c.5., nor with the collector of the customs, pursuant to the 2 & 3 Ann. c. 6., it was holden that the apprentice should not be prejudiced by the neglect of the master to enrol the indenture, although the stamp duties were thereby evaded. Rex v. Gainsborough, Burr.

S. C. 586. 1 Bott, 635. The master's If the binding be bona fide, the master's condition is immaterial. condition is Thus a female may be bound apprentice by the parish to a dayimmaterial.

labourer to learn housewifery, and it will be good unless it is proved to be fraudulent. Rex v. St. Margaret's, Lincoln, 1 Bott,

713. Binding to two It will be a good binding, if the apprentice is bound by one insuccessive mas- denture to two masters, to learn successively two different trades.

Rex v. Louth, 8 B. & C. 247. Infants.

Rex v. St. Petrox in Dartmouth, 4 T. R. 196. The father of the The master

pauper's husband agreed with Mary Hayne, widow, to bind his may be an son, then aged about eight years, an apprentice to R. H., son of infant. M. H., who was then between the ages of fourteen and fifteen,

and was then resident in his mother's house as a part of her family, and had no habitation or business of his own. And it was ad. mitted by the bar, and agreed by the court, that this indenture of apprenticeship was not absolutely void on account of the infancy of the parties; and that, unless there were some other objection,

the pauper gained a settlement by virtue of the apprenticeship. An infant may

An infant may bind himself; because the indenture must be bind himself. considered clearly as for his benefit. Rex v. St. Mary's, Reading,

1 Bott, 705. Rex v. Saltern, 1 Bott, 717. Rex v. Arundel, 5 M. & S. 257.

“ If an agreement be for the benefit of an infant at the time, it shall bind him.” Per Lord Mansfield in Drury v. Drury, Dom. Proc. 26th of May 1762. 5 Bro. Parl. C. 570.; cited by Buller J. in Maddon v. White, 2 T. R. 161., and Rex v. Weddington, 1 Bott,

636. His liability The question of the extent of the liability of an infant, who therefrom.

binds himself apprentice, will be considered hereafter, p. 144. Chimney

As to who may take chimney-sweepers apprentices, see infra, sweeps

tit. Chimney Sweepers. Watermen.

As to who may take watermen's apprentices, see tit. Thames,

and stat. 7 & 8 G.4. c. lxxv. (local act.) Alien using

The stat. 14 & 15 H. 8. c. 2. § 1., prohibits any alien or denizen, any handicraft. using any manner of handicraft within the realm, from taking an

apprentice, not born under the king's obeizance, upon pain of forfeiting 10l. ; half to the king and half to the informer.

man.

The binding of an apprentice to a married woman is void. Rer Married wov. Guilford, 2 Chilt. Rep. 281.

By stat. 5 El. c. 4. 9 33. 39. 45., every person that shall have 5 Eliz. c. 4. three apprentices in any the crafts of a clothmaker, fuller, sheer- Number re

strained in cerman, weaver, tailor, or shoemaker, shall keep one journeyman;

tain cases. and for every other apprentice above three, one other journey: (repealed by man, on pain of 101.; half to the king, and half to him that shall 49G.3. c. 109.) sue in the sessions or other court of record; or if it is in a town corporate, then to be applied as by the charter. (But this provision was repealed by stat. 49 G. 3. c. 109. ♡ 2.)

By stat. 13 & 14°C. 2. c. 5. 9 18., weavers of stuffs in Norfolk 13 & 14 C.2.and Norwich, that shall employ two apprentices, shall also employ c. 5. two journeymen ; and no master shall have above two apprentices, stutis in Noror any week-boy to weave in the said trade; on pain of 5l. a

folk, &c. month to the king.

The stat. 1 Jac. 1. c. 17. 9 3. 5., respecting hat-makers' appren. 17 G. 3. c. 55. tices, was repealed by stat. 17 G.3. c. 55. By the latter statute, Hat-makers. $ 2., it is enacted, - that every master hatmaker shall and is hereby required to take and employ one journeyman hatter for every apprentice he shall employ in the trade of hat-making, provided there shall be a sufficient number of journeymen batters, who have served as apprentices to the said trade (a), offer them. (a) Sic. selves for that employment; or, in default thereof, he shall for ever thereafter be disabled from taking more than two apprentices to the said trade, in such manner as he would have been if this act had not been made.”

(As to the number of watermen's apprentices, see tit. Thames.) Watermen.

By stat. 5 El. c. 4. Ø 39., one half of all forfeitures mentioned 7 & 8 G. 4. in this act, other than such as are expressly otherwise appointed, c. lxxv. $ 29. shall be to the king, and the other half to him that shall sue in the Penalties on

5 Eliz. c. 4. sessions or other court of record : or ($ 45.), if it is in a city or town corporate, then to the use of such city or town as other

buted. fines, &c. levied within such city, &c. by any charter granted to such city, &c.

how distri

II. Who are compellable to be bound Apprentices.

By stat. 5 El. c.4. $ 35., if any person shall be required by any 5 Eliz. c. 4. householder using half plough-land at least in tillage to be an Who shall be apprentice, and to serve in husbandry, or in any other art, mystery, tound, or science before expressed, and shall refuse so to do, then, on complaint of such housekeeper to one justice (or head officer) he shall send for the person refusing; and if he shall think the said person meet to serve, and such person refuse to be bound, he may commit him to ward, there to remain until he be contented and will be bound.

But by $ 36. no person shall be bound to enter into any appren- At what age. ticeship, other than such as be under the age of twenty-one years.

(As to compulsory bindings of parish apprentices, see post, p. 156. & vi.)

III. Binding. (a)

(1.) of the instrument of binding, p. 140.
(2.) Of the necessary parties; and of execution by them, p. 141.
(3.) Of the time for which the apprentice must be bound, p. 142.
(4.) Of the covenants of the parties respectively, p. 144.
(5.) of the stamp, p. 146.

An ap

III. (1.) Df the Instrument of Binding. Before the stat. 54 G.3. c.96. $2. (see infrà), the following authorities had established, that an apprentice could only be

bound by indenture, i. e., by deed indented. (6) Binding to be 1. One cannot be bound an apprentice without deed. Int. by deed :

Par. Castor and Aickles, 1 Salk. 68. by indenture : 2. And by stat. 5 El. c.4. it was to be by indenture.

prentice can only be bound by indenture. Per Ld. Kenyon C. J.,

3 Esp. 189. not by deed Smith v. Birch, M.1 G. 2., 1 Sess. Cas. 222. 1 Bott, 628. An poll:

action was brought against the defendant for enticing away and detaining the plaintiff's apprentice, who had agreed by writing to serve the plaintiff for seven years. Upon evidence it appeared that the style of the writing began, This indenture,&c. but in fact the parchment was not indented, but was a deed poll. On exception taken to the deed, it was insisted that the young man was not an apprentice, because he was not bound by an indenture. An infant can be bound no other way than as the statute of 5 El. directs, which is by indenture, and nothing can make this good. The deed cannot now be indented, for that would be a forgery: Therefore, unless the plaintiff shews the apprentice to be of full age at the time of signing such deed, he cannot be accounted his apprentice, and, by consequence, no action can lie for detaining the apprentice; neither can the plaintiff prove him to be his servant by his deed, for he has declared for an apprentice, and must prove

him so to be. Therefore the plaintiff was nonsuited. agreement to An agreement to execute an indenture of apprenticeship was held

not to constitute a sufficient binding under 5 Eliz. C. 4. though denture.

a service of seven years had been performed under it. Rex v.

Stratton, Burr. S. Č. 272. 1 Bott, 632. 54 G. 3. c. 96. But now, by stat. 54 G. 3. c. 96. § 2., it shall be lawful for any Binding may person to take or retain or become an apprentice, though not acthan by 5 Eliz. cording to the provisions of 5 El. c.4. ; and indentures, deeds, and

agreements in writing, entered into for that purpose, which would be otherwise valid, shall be valid in law, the repeal of so much of the said act as is herein last above recited (c) notwithstanding.

execute in

c. 4.

(a) See Settlement by Apprenticeship, Vol. IV.

(6) But by stat. 31 G. 2. c. 11., it was enacted, that a binding by deed not indented should be sufficient for the purpose of enabling the person bound to gain a settlement.

(c) Vix. comm. semb. 5 Eliz. C. 4. sess. 25—30. ; and certainly the whole of $ 41. which is recited in the beginning of the above section. See antè, p. 137.

and 11. (a).

Of course a parol binding cannot constitute an apprenticeship. Rezv. Mawman, Burr. S. C. 290. 1 Bott, 634. Rexv. Ditchingkam, 4 T. R. 769. 2 Bott, 505.

Rex v.

III. (2.) Df the necessary Parties ; and of Execution by them. In the special case of a parish apprentice, he may be bound The apprentice without executing the indenture. (See infrà, and Rex v. Nicholas must be a party, in Nottingham, 2 T. R. 726. 2 Bott, 502. Rex v. Woolstanton, and execute the 1 Bott, 707.) But in ordinary cases, the person to be bound,

deed, though au

infant. even though an infant, must be a party to the deed, and must execute it. Rex v. Chesterfield, 1 Bott, 625. 2 Salk. 479. Cromford, 8 East, 25. By the common law, a father had no authority to bind his infant son apprentice without his assent; consequently, where the indenture is executed by the master and the father, but not also by the apprentice, it is invalid. Rex v. Arnesby, 3 B. & A. 584.

Nor will it be considered as tantamount to execution by the apprentice, that he has taken the benefit of the deed by serving under it. Ibid.

So an indenture will not be binding, if the apprentice, being of full age, though assenting to the binding, does not execute the deed. Rex v. Ripon, 9 East, 295.

Rez v. Quainton, H. 54 G. 3., 2 M. & S. 338. Bott, Cont. 16. Indenture reRemoval from Quainton to Bicester-Market-End quashed, sub- citing certain ject, &c. The pauper on the 23d of November 1811, being then trustees to be & poor boy, aged thirteen, of the parish of Quainton, was,

parties, held with

good, though the consent and approbation of the trustees (created by the will of not executed by Lady Say and Sele, for the purpose of yearly putting out a cer- the trustees. tain number of poor boys apprentices), bound apprentice to J. Adams of Bicester, for seven years, for the consideration of 201., stated in the indenture to be paid to Adams by the said trustees, who were also recited to be parties to the said indenture; but it was only executed by the pauper and Adams. The pauper served under the indenture at Bicester more than forty days. One of the questions for the opinion of the court was, whether the indenture was void on account of the trustees not having joined in the execution. -- Lord Ellenborough C. J. said, Upon that point, it appeared that the money was paid out of the funds of the public charity, and that it was paid by the trustees in the execution of their trust; and that they acted very wisely not to involve themselves by becoming parties to the covenant.

Rex v. Fleet, Cald. 31. 2 Bott, 500. This was a question of Non-execution settlement, and it appeared that the pauper, a parish appren- by the master. tice, was bound by indentures ; that the original indenture was properly executed by the parish officers, and allowed by two justices. The counterpart was also allowed by the justices, but neither the indenture nor counterpart was executed by the master. The master accepted the indenture and the pauper, and considered him as his apprentice. And upon this case there arose a question, whether it was necessary under 8 & 9 W.3. c.30. $ 5. (post, s VI.) that the master should have executed a counterpart to enable the pauper to gain a settlement?—Lord Mansfield C. J. said, the binding was authorized by 43 Eliz. c. 2. § 5. long before the act, requiring a counterpart; that the statute of W'. 3. only compelled persons to receive poor apprentices, but did not in other

« EelmineJätka »