apprentice for seven years to a weaver-it was argued, that, as this was not a binding according to the statute, the indenture was void, because an infant could not bind himself; and therefore the pauper could not gain a settlement under it.-But by the whole court.: It did gain him a settlement; for an infant may make an indenture for his own benefit. Newberry v. St. Mary's in Reading, Hil. 3 Geo. 2. Foley, 154

But the binding must be by deed *, for there can be no ap. To be by deed. prenticeship by parol―Thus in the K. v. Stratton, Ea. 21 Geo. 2, the pauper at fourteen years of age was placed by his mother as an apprentice with a cordwainer in Stratton for six years; but at the time of placing him out, no indenture of apprentice. ship was executed. The pauper lived with, and served his mas. ter in Stratton as an apprentice for the term of six years; and in the last year of the term, one part of an indenture was prepared in order to bind him pursuant to the contract, but it did not appear to have ever been executed either by the pauper or by his mother and master, or by either of them -THE SESSIONS adjudged the pauper to have gained a settlement in Stration. But it was objected, that this does not amount to such a binding as will gain a settlement, there being no indenture duly executed.-THE COURT seemed to think this objection too strong to be answered; and granted a rule to shew cause why the order of sessions should not be quashed, which rule was after. wards made absolute without defence. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 272.

And as no settlement can be obtained by apprenticeship where the binding is not by deed, the servitude as an apprentice in such case cannot be considered as an hiring and service for a year, for the purpose of conferring a settlement.--Thus in the R.. Whitechurch Canonicorum, Tr. 5 Geo. 3, the pauper who was settled in Whitechurch at the age of 22, agreed with a stonemason at Wotton Fitz-payne, that he should take him apprentice for six years, and teach him the trade; and tha' indentures should be executed between them accordingly: but no such in dentures were ever executed. The pauper, immediately after the said agreement went to live with his master, and worked for him as an apprentice in his trade for five years and upwards, in Wotton Filz-payne, when he married, and left his master with consent.-THE SESSIONS adjudged, that the pauper did not gain any settlement in the parish of Fitz-payne. And it being moved to quash the order of removal to Whitechurch, it was contended, in support of the order, that the pauper was neither bound as an apprentice, nor hired as a servant; for there was no indenture executed, nor any hiring either express or implied; and that the objects being different, the binding as an apprentice, and the hiring as a servant, could not be converted one into the other.-On the other side, it was contended to .ba

Though it is not actually necessary to be by indenture, See stat. 32 Geo. 2. c. 1. and note in the preceding page.

good as a hiring and service.-But THE COURT were clearly and unanimously of opinion, that the rule for quashing the order should be discharged. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 540.

So in the K. v. Kingswoore, Tr. 16 Geo. 3, a man at Balwell having agreed to take the pauper as his apprentice and give him meat, drink, washing and lodging, until he was twenty-one; the pauper being then sixteen years of age, went and lived with him in Halwell accordingly, until he was twenty-one ; but no indentures were executed or talked of by any of the parties.It was objected, that the pauper gained no settlement in Hal. well, there never having been any indenture; upon this the other side acknowledged, that it could not be defended; and Aston, J. said, it could not be supported, either as having gained a settlement as an apprentice, or as a hired servant. Burrows's Sett. Cus. 839.

So in the K. v. Ditchingham, Tr. 32 Geo. 3, the pauper at seven or eight years of age was placed out by the parish officers of Baddingham, at a general parish meeting, under the following agreement, written on a leaf of the parish book, together with several other agreements of the same sort, and not stamped: August 7th, 1774.-At a general parish meeting, held

at the parish of Eaddingham this day, it is agreed that R F "shall takeH C, and maintain her after the manner of an

apprentice, with washing, lodging, clothing, &c. from this "day until Michaelmas 1780; R F to have 20l. with her, and "at the expiration of the said time to double clothe her; wit66 ness my hand, R F.”—In pursuance of that agreement the pauper went to live with her master at Baddingham, and served him one year; when he took a farm at Ditchingham, to which he removed, carrying the pauper with him; where she lived one year and a half. The case was to have been argued, but THE COURT thought the point too clear to be discussed. They said, that though a modern act of parliament had dispensed with the necessity of having the deed of apprenticeship indented, it was still necessary that the binding should be by deed*; and that the service as an apprentice could not be converted into a service as an hired servant.- Order of sessions, confirming the order of removal to Ditchingham, quashed. Term Rep. 769.

So in the K. v. Margram, Hil. 33 Geo. 3, the pauper, who was born in the parish of Neath, had been told that his mother had agreed with the agent for the English Copper Company at Margram, for him to serve seven years as an apprentice. He served in the copper works for eight years, receiving weekly wages, and also 20s, a year as a refiner; the pauper conceived himself to be serving as an apprentice, but he signed no indenture or agreement whatsoever, neither was there any signed by any other person on his behalf to his knowledge-THE COURT, without hearing any argument, were clearly of opinion that this

*For which see title STAMPS, supra.

servitude as an apprentice could not be converted into a service under an hiring, and that therefore the pamper hal gained no settlement in Margram. 5 Term Rep. 153.

All indentures of apprenticeship are to be written or en- Decl to be grossed on paper or parchment, having a proper stamp there- duly stamped.

on.

And by the acts imposing the duties, the same shail not be given in evidence in any court, or be available in law or equity, until they be stamped

Accordingly in the K. v. Lianvari Dyfryn Clwyd, Tr. 17 & 18 Geo. 2, an infant having been bound out an apprentice by indenture which was not stamped---it was ruled, that the indenture not being stamped could not be given in evidence, being void to all intents and purposes. Burrozo's Sell, Cas. 236.

So in the K. v. Holbeck in Leeds, Mic. 16 Geo. 2, the order of sessions stated, that the pauper at the age of nine was by the parish put apprentice by indenture, till his age of 21: but the said indenture being produced, the same appeared not to be upon stamped paper.---Lee Ch. J. I think the indenture cannot be available in evidence in any court, by the express words of the act of 5 Will. & Mar. c. 21. s. 11,which says, that such indenture shall not be given in evidence, nor be available in any court, till the duty and penalty be paid, and the parchmeat or paper stamped. And yet this indenture was necessary evidence to make out the proof of a binding by indenture: for that binding could be no otherwise proved than by the indentare. But this indenture being unstamped, was not ad. missible as a proof of the thing: it could not be given in evidence, or admitted to be available. And yet it must be taken, upon the state of this case, that this indenture, though unstamped, was received in evidence by the sessions, which they ought not to have done. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 198.

Besides the above duties, there were also payable by 8 Ann. c. 9, upon all apprentice fees (except those given with apprentices placed out at the common or public charge of any parish, or by any public charity) a duty of 6d, for every 209. of every sura of 50%. or under; and 1s. for every sum more than 50%. to be paid by the master. These duties have been since repealed.--See title STAMPS, §. 32, 40.

And indentures wherein the full sum were not inserted, or whereupon the duties were not paid, or which were not stamped or tendered to be stamped, were declared to be void, and not available in any court or place, or to any purpose whatsoever. 8. 39.

An apprentice therefore cannot gain a settlement by servitude

* But upon payment of the duty and penalty, and a receipt for the payment thereof being produced, the instrument becomes good and available in all courts, although it were not stamped at the time it was executed; for the design of the several statutes is only to prevent frauds in the stamp duties. 8 Mod. 365. 4 Pacon's Abr. tit. Sramps. (F)

under the indentures, unless the duty on the apprentice fee has been paid, and the indentures are duly stamped....Thus in Cuerden v. Leland, Hil. 4. Geo. 2, a poor boy was bound out apprentice by indenture, and the master had 20s. paid him. The apprentice served three years, but the master never paid the duty.--Fortescue, J. on the circuit at Lancaster, held, that, the pauper gained a settlement because the master has six months to pay the duty in, so that during those six months a settlement was gained which it was not in the power of the master to defeat by matter ex post facto. But upon debate after. wards in the King's Bench, it was determined to be no settlement; for the statute says, that if the duty be not paid, the indenture shall be void to all intents and purposes. 2 Strange,

903.

But in Baxter. Faulam, Ea. 19 Geo. 2, where the question was, Whether an indenture of apprenticeship, where sixpence was mentioned to be the sum given with the apprentice, was void for want of the duty being paid for the sum given? Br THE WHOLE COURT, This is a case wherein it is well known that there is no coin small enough to pay the duty in; and the statute does not intend, that any sum less than 20s. paid with an apprentice shall pay duty: therefore there was no occasion to have this indenture stamped according to the statute. 1 Wils. 129.

So also in the K. v. Yarmouth. Hil. 28 Geo. 2, it was objected that an indenture was void to all intents and purposes; it appearing that the pauper's apprenticeship was in consideration of 6d. and that no duty was paid for the same; but the case of Baxter v, Baulam being mentioned, the point was given up. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 379.

And where a sum agreed to be given with an apprentice was five guineas, which was inserted in the indenture, and the duty paid accordingly: but the sum in fact paid was only four guineas: it was objected that no other than the precis sum paid should have been stated in the indenture, and tha the indentures were therefore void, and no settlement gaine under them: BUT BY THE COURT, the statute by requiring th full sum to be inserted, meant, that not less than the sum upo which the duty was really payable should be inserted an here not only the full sum, but in truth more than the sum fo which the duty was payable, has been inserted, and the dut raid upon such larger sum. There has therefore been no frau upon the public, but the whole which the act required, an even more has been complied with; and therefore there is n ground for the objection. The K. v. Keynsham, T. Ter. 4 Ges.3. 5 East. Rep. 309.

So likewise an apprentice bound out at the common or pul lic charge of any parish, or by any public charity, gains a se tlement though no duty is paid on the fee given with such a prentice; for by the express provision of the statute*, the

8 Ann. c. 9. & 40.

fees are exempted from the duty. Some questions however have arisen, as to what shall be considered a binding by a pubKe charity; thus in the K. v. St. Matthew Bethnal, Green, Hil. 7 Geo. 3, the pauper was brought up at the chari'y-school of the parish of St. John Warping, and was bound apprentice to a blacksmith for seven years, and served his time; at the time of his being put apprentice 51. was inserted in the in denture as paid, and was actually paid to the master, out of a voluntary yearly contribution or subscription of divers of the inhabitants of St. John Wapping, for putting out boys and girls apprentices brought up at the charity-school of the said parish; but no duty had been paid by the master in respect of that sum. The question was, Whether, as it was a charity. binding, and the money being paid out of a charity, it was ne cessary that the indenture should be stamped. And it was ar gued, that this could not be deemed a public charity within the act, because it was not a permanent charity. But lord Mansfield and the court were clear that this is a public charity, and a very landable one. It is not necessary that it should be a permanent charity. The reason of the distinction between a pub. lic and private charity is obvious: a private one might be cal culated to evade the act; a public one cannot be supposed to have been so. This is a public charity within the reason and the letter of the act. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 574.

So in the case of the K. v. Clifton upon Dunsmore, Hil. 12 Geo. 3, it appeared that the pauper, who had served as an apprentice four years of his time, had been bound apprentice to a person for seven years, and that the sum of 71. mentioned in the indenture was paid to the master as the consideration, out of some charity money left by the will of a widow, in the following words: ITEM, to Clifton 50l. to be given as my brother thinks fit, some on't to put out children apprentices; the objection was, that the indentures were not valid, because the duty on the apprentice fee was not paid. And it was ar gued, that this was not a public charity, but a private one; because it was entirely teft to the choice of the testatrix's brother, Whether to put out children apprentices with the money, er not.—But THE COURT held it to be a public CHARITY. Burrow's Set. Cas. 697.

So also money given by the parish-officers (in the case of a voluntary binding) as the consideration of taking an apprentice, is not liable to the duty;-thus in the K. v. St. Petrox, Durtmouth, Hil. 31 Geo. 3, the father of the pauper's husband having been told by the parish officers of Townstall, that they would give him 20s, to bind out his son an apprentice if he would find a place for him. He accordingly agreed to bind him out to a person at Slapton, and pay 265. as a consideration for the apprenticeship: but it did not appear that the party knew that any promise was made by the overseers, with respect to the advancing any money for this purpose. The father afterwards received the 20s. from the churchwardens and over