A master having executed the counterpart of the indenture, is estopped from proving any prior informality in such indentures. The allowance of an indenture, to which the officers are parties, must be signed, but need not be sealed, by the justices. it is necessary that they should confer together."-Per Ashurst J. "The act of the justices in this case is in its nature an act of judgment. They are the guardians of the morals of the people, and ought to take care that the apprentices are not placed with masters who may corrupt their morals. The justices, therefore, should inquire particularly whether or not they ought to allow the binding by the parish officers; and they would be guilty of a breach of duty, if they implicitly gave their assent without examining into the circumstances of the case."-Per Buller J. "The act of assenting to the binding of parish apprentices is purely judicial; for on appeal, the justices at the sessions are not only to consider the propriety of binding out the apprentice, but also whether the master be bound to take him."-Per Grose J. “This act is peculiarly of a judicial nature, for the magistrates are appointed the guardians of those who have no other guardians. They should therefore exercisc their judgment in this case with great deliberation." Rex v. Hamstall Ridware, 3 T. R. 380. 1 Bott, 721. But it has been held to be sufficient, although one magistrate sign the indenture when alone, if he is afterwards present when the other executed it, and they both agreed to the propriety of the measure. (a) Rex v. Winwick, 8 T. R. 454. 1 Bott, 725. But where a master had executed the counterpart of an indenture, and afterwards appealed, the court of K. B. held, that the sessions had done right in rejecting parol evidence, which was offered to shew, that at the time when the counterpart was executed by him, the indenture and counterpart were signed by one justice only, though the indenture, when produced, appeared to have been signed and allowed by two justices; the appellant by having executed the counterpart was estopped, and could not be permitted to contradict his own deed. Willes J. inclined to think it was sufficient if the justices gave their assent at any time before the appeal. Rex v. Saltren, Cald. 444. 1 Bott, 613. (b). The allowance of an indenture of apprenticeship, to which the parish officers are actual parties, is required by the stat. 56 G. 3. c. 139. § 1., to be signed by two justices, but need not be under seal. Rex v. St. Paul, Exeter, 10 B. & C. 12. But, as there has already been occasion to shew, (see antè, p. 171.) the allowance of an indenture to which the parish officers are not parties, but in respect whereof some expense has been incurred by the public parochial funds, is required by the 11th section of that statute to be sealed, as well as signed, by two justices. Ibid. The cause of this distinction is, that the first ten sections of the stat. 56 G. 3, c. 139. apply to cases where the parish officers are parties to the indenture of apprenticeship, and the 11th section to cases where the parish officers do not join in the indenture, but where some (a) Per Lord Kenyon C. J. S. C. The principle on which this case is dctermined, was recognized some years ago in a case of murder. A magistrate, who kept by him a number of blank warrants ready signed, on being applied to, filled up one of these, and signed and delivered it to the officer, who, on endeavouring to arrest the party, was killed; the judges were of opinion, that this was murder in the person killing the officer, and he was accordingly executed. (b) It must, however, be observed, that by stat. 56 G 3. c. 139. § 1., the justices shall sign their allowance of the indenture, before the same shall be executed by any of the other parties thereto. part of the expense attending the indenture is defrayed out of the public parochial funds. Ibid. (See antè, p. 163.) churchwardens a pauper ap Rex v. Hinckley, H. 58 G. 3., 1 B. & A. 273. 1 Nol. P. L. 503. An indenture Removal from the liberties of Monks Kirby, in the county of War- stated that the wick, (which liberties have overseers appointed, and maintain their overseers and own poor separately from the other parts of the parish,) to the of M. in the parish of Hinckley, in the county of Leicester. The sessions, on county of W., appeal, confirmed this order, subject to the opinion of the court with the conof K. B. on the following case:- The pauper was bound ap- sent of justices prentice by the churchwardens and overseers of the liberties of of the said Monks Kirby, to John Wright of Hinckley, by a parish inden- county, bound ture, of the 3d of August 1795, which stated that J. B. and prentice to E. B., churchwardens of the liberties of Monks Kirby, in the T. W., of H. county of Warwick, and S. C. and J. T., overseers of the poor of in the county the said liberties, by and with the consent of the justices of the of L., and the justices in their peace for the said county, whose names were thereto subscribed, written consent had placed William Sansom, aged eight years or thereabouts, a in the margin poor child of the said liberties, apprentice to John Wright, of described themthe parish of Hinckley, in the county of Leicester, framework- selves as justices knitter, with him to dwell and serve from thence until the apprenof the county tice should accomplish his full age of twenty-one years, according that it suffiaforesaid: Held, to the statute in that case made and provided. The indenture ciently appeared was duly executed by all the parties thereto, and in the margin that they were the magistrates stated their consent, but described themselves as justices of the justices for the county aforesaid. The pauper served his master county of W. under this indenture in the parish of Hinckley, from the date of the indenture until its expiration, and during the whole of that period slept in that parish. The magistrates who signed the allowance of the indenture were magistrates for the county of Warwick, and also for the county of Leicester.-After argument, Ld. Ellenborough C. J. said, "It is quite clear that the words 'county aforesaid' can only refer to the county of Warwick. The justices, we must presume, read the indenture before they allowed it; and indeed their very words of reference prove that it must have been so then, if they did read it, they must have known that they had no authority to act, except as justices of the county of Warwick. The question after all really is, Whether said county and county aforesaid mean the same thing? If they do, it is evident from the body of the instrument that the words 'said county' can only apply to the county of Warwick. It will follow, that the words county aforesaid' must have the same application."-Order of sessions confirmed. So in Rez v. Countesthorpe, 2 B. & Adol. 487., by a parish indenture made in February 1816, which purported to be made between the churchwarden and overseers of the parish of D., in the county of Northampton, of the one part, and A. B. of Countesthorpe, in the county of Leicester, of the other part, it was witnessed that the said churchwarden and overseers of the parish of D., with the consent of two of his majesty's justices of the peace for the said county, dwelling in or near the said parish, had bound, &c.: The justices, in their written consent in the margin of the indenture, described themselves as justices of the county aforesaid: and it was held, that the words " county aforesaid" had the same meaning as the words "said county in the body of the indenture; and that it sufficiently appeared by the reference to Same point where the county last "the said county," is not that to which the assenting justices belong. named before The statute 56 G. 3. c. 139. § 1. requiring that the order of justices for the binding out of parish apprentices shall be referred to in the indenture by the date thereof, is com pulsory; and, therefore, an indenture, in which the date of the order is omitted, is void. the latter words, that the consenting justices were justices of the county of Northampton. W. Rex v. Bawbergh, 2 B. & C. 222. Upon an appeal against an order of justices for the removal of W. Pease from the parish of St. Andrew, in the city of Norwich, to the parish of Bawbergh, in the county of Norfolk, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the court of K. B. on the following case: Pease was an illegitimate child, born in Great Melton, in Norfolk; and by an order of two justices, bearing date the 11th day of May 1819, and made under the provisions of stat. 56 G. 3. c. 139., and an indenture not stamped, was bound an apprentice. The order of justices was set out at length; and the indenture of apprenticeship stated, that the churchwardens and overseers, by and with the consent of two justices for the county of Norfolk, whose names were thereunto subscribed, bound W. Pease, a poor child, as an apprentice, for the term of seven years, &c.; but the indenture did not mention the date of the order of justices, nor did it appear whether they signed the indenture before or after the other parties. The parish officers of Melton paid the master the sum of 101. (which was the premium stipulated to be paid by the inden ture), and the pauper entered upon his apprenticeship, and served his master at Bawbergh, for about a year and a half; when, on his master's failure, he left him and came to Norwich. -Bayley J. "I am of opinion that this indenture is void, and consequently, that no settlement was gained in the parish of Bawbergh. The statute of the 56 G. 3. c. 139. has introduced a variety of new regulations as to the mode of binding out parish apprentices. It requires that the child shall be carried before two justices, and they are to inquire into the propriety of binding such child apprentice to the person to whom it shall be proposed by the overseers to bind him; and if the justices shall, upon the inquiry, think it proper that the child shall be bound apprentice to such person, the statute then enacts that the justices shall make an order, declaring that such person is a fit person to whom the child may be bound as apprentice, and shall thereupon order that the overseer of the place to which the child shall belong, shall be at liberty to bind such child apprentice accordingly; which order shall be delivered to such overseer as the warrant for binding such child as aforesaid; and such order shall be referred to by the date thereof, and the names of the said justices in the indenture of apprenticeship of such child; and after such order shall have been made, such justices shall sign their allowance of such indenture of apprenticeship, before the same shall be executed by any of the other parties thereto.' The statute requires specifically that the order should be referred to by the date; and the object of that might be, that the order might be found with facility at any future period. The statute then requires that the justices shall sign the allowance of such indenture. Now, the word 'such' is not immaterial; and the reference to the order by date, is either directory only, or it is of the essence of the indenture. I am of opinion that it means such an indenture as was before required, viz. one containing the date of the order of justices. The 5th section then enacts, that no settlement shall be gained by any child who shall be bound by the officers of any parish, &c. by reason of such apprenticeship, unless such order shall be made, and such allowance of such indenture shall be signed as therein- Rex v. Bawbefore directed. There must, therefore, be an allowance, not of bergh. such indenture, but of such indenture as was therein-before directed, ciz. of one referring to the order of justices by the date thereof. I doubt whether the 11th section applies to such a case as the present, or whether it applies only to such cases where the binding is by the parents, and not by the overseers; but I am clearly of opinion that, construing the 1st and 5th sections together, this indenture is void, and that no settlement was gained in the parish of Bawbergh by the service under it."-Best J. concurred.-Order of sessions quashed. VI. (4.) Df Notice to the Dverseers of the Parish in which the Apprentice is to serve. In the construction of the second section of the stat. 56 G. 3. c. 139. (see the section stated, antè, p. 160, 161.), it has been held, that when an apprentice is to be bound from one parish into another, it is necessary, before the allowance by the justices, to give notice to the overseers of the parish in which it is intended that the apprentice shall serve; and that, whether the binding be in the same or a different county. The first case on this subject is Rex v. Newark-upon-Trent, 3 B. & C. 59., in which it was held (Abbott C. J. dissentiente), that such notice was necessary to be given to the overseers, where the parish into which the apprentice was to be bound was within a different jurisdiction from the binding parish, though in the same county. This decision was followed by Rex v. Threlkeld, 4 B. & Ad. 229., where it was held, that when an apprentice is bound from one parish into another, notice must be given to the overseers of the latter, though both be in the same county and jurisdiction. The judges, in giving their opinions on those occasions, went into a full consideration of the whole statute, and adverted incidentally to several points which may hereafter arise upon the construction of it. It is therefore judged advisable to state the circumstances of each of the two cases, and the judgments therein, at length. When an apprentice is bound from one parish into an. other, notice must (in all cases) be given to the overseers of the latter. rish of N. C., the county, Rex v. Inh. of Newark-upon-Trent, T. 1824, 3 B. & C. 59. A pauper, setRemoval of W. Hales, his wife and child, from the parish of tled in the paNewark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, to the township in the county of North Collingham, in the same county, the sessions on appeal of Nottingham, discharged the order, subject, &c.-The pauper, W. Hales, a poor was, pursuant boy, of and then legally settled in the parish of North Collingham, to an order of in the county of Nottingham, was on 18th June 1817, pursuant two justices of to an order of two justices of that county, bound apprentice by bound apprenthe churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish to tice by the Edward Sutton, of the parish of Newark-upon-Trent, in the bo- churchwardens rough of Newark-upon-Trent, in the county of Nottingham, by and overseers indenture, for a term therein mentioned. A premium of 10l. was of that parish to A. B. of given with the apprentice to the master by the said churchwardens another parish, and overseers, although only 51. was set forth in the indenture as in a borough the sum paid. The two justices who signed the aforesaid order situate in the afterwards signed and sealed their allowance of the indenture of same county, apprenticeship before the same was executed by any of the other but having jus partics thereto. The parishes of North Collingham and Newark- exclusive juris tices who had R. v. Inh. of diction therein. The indenture was allowed by the two county justices, but no notice was given to the Overseers of the poor of the parish in the borough, of the intention to bind such apprentice, nor did they or any of them attend county justices tiente, that by the indenture was void for want of such notice. upon-Trent are distant from each other about six miles, and in the same county. No notice whatever was given to the overseers of the poor of the parish of Newark-upon-Trent, or to any of them, of the intention to bind out such apprentice; nor did they or any of them attend before the justices who signed the order and allowed the indenture; nor was any such notice alleged or attempted to be proved to have been given, but the said justices allowed the said indenture without any such proof of service or admission of notice. Newark is a borough situate in the county of Nottingham, having justices who have exclusive jurisdiction therein. The pauper resided under this indenture in Newark-upon-Trent more than forty days. This case was argued in last term by Chitty in support of the order of sessions, and Scarlett and Balguy contrà. There being a difference of opinion on the bench, the court delivered their judgments seriatim.- Littledale J. "I am of opinion the indenture of apprenticeship is invalid, because no notice was given to the overseers of Newark-upon-Trent, and that no settlement was gained under it. The question depends entirely on the construc tion of stat. 56 G. 3. c. 139., which recites, that inconveniences had been felt from binding poor children apprentices to improper persons, and to persons residing at a distance from the parishes to which such children belong. [The learned judge here stated verbatim sections 1, 2, 3. and 5. of the statute (see antè, p. 160, 161.), and then proceeded as follows:] In the present case I think it is not necessary to consider whether notice must, in all cases, be given to the overseers of the parish into which the child is to be bound, whether such parish be in the county to which the child shall belong, or in the district into which it is to be bound, or whether the necessity of the notice to the overseers is to be confined to the cases where the child is to be bound into a different jurisdiction from that to which it belonged. There seems to be one reason why notice should not be necessary in the same county, because the justices have more power and better means of informa tion as to the points to which they are to direct their inquiries before binding an apprentice, and, therefore, there is not the same necessity for notice to the overseers that there is in a foreign county, in which the justices are less acquainted, where they have not the same communication with the overseers, nor the same means of inquiry that they have in their own county; and, therefore, it may appear reasonable that notice should be given to the overseers of a parish in a foreign county into which the child shall be bound, so that between the justices of the county where the binding parish is, and the overseers of the parish into which the child is to be bound, a full investigation may be made as to those points on which the statute directs inquiries to be made. Another reason may be given why notice should not be required, viz. that the second section of the act in which this enactment is contained begins with making provisions in cases where the binding is to be into a different county, and that, therefore, all the provisions in that section ought to be so confined: this last reason, however, does not appear sufficient, because the division of an act of parliament into sections is a mere arbitrary thing, forming no part of the act, and ought not to furnish any rule for interpreting any clause. The only proper way to interpret any sentence is to look at the language of the sentence itself, and the connection it has with the |