« PreviousContinue »
seers, but he only applied 5$. of it according to his agreement, converting the remaining 159. to his own use; it appeared by the indenture of apprenticeship, that the son of his own free will, and with the consent of his father, voluntarily bound him. self apprentice; but there was no stamp thereon for the consideration money : the son served under the indentures in Slapton, until he was twenty years of age.--It was contended, that this indenture was void for the want of an additional stamp for the consideration money of 204. given with the apprentice; for that this does not come within the proviso in the statute of Anne relative to sums given with apprentices at the public charge of any parish, or by or out of any public charity. But Lord Kenyon was clearly of opinion, that this considera. tion money was not subject to the dutv imposed by that statute, as it was advanced by the parish oificers out of money raised at the common and public charge of the parish, and as such, came within the proviso of the act.-- Ashhurst and Grose Justices were of the same opinion.-Buller, J. being absent*. 4 Term Rep. 196, 199.
So where money is paid to the master, in order to clothe the apprentice, he is to be considered only as an agent to lay out that money for the apprentice's use, and no duty is payable in respect thereof.--The K, v. Northowram, Ea. 13 Geo. 2, the mother of a lad proposed to put him out apprentice to an in. habitant of Northororam, who refused to take him because he wanted clothes, upon which the grandfather agreed to pay 30s. to the master to clothe the boy with, in pursuance of which the master did lay out 30s. in clothes for the boy, and he was bound by indenture, in which no mention is made of the 30s. nor was any duty paid : the grandfather paid the 30s, and the apprentice served out his time, which the sessions adjudged to be a settlement. And the question was, Whether this 30s. was such a sum as ought to be inserted in the indenture.-Lee Ch. J.. In the present case, the master is to be considered as an agent to the grandfather for the clothing of the boy. The grandfather was obliged to repay him, and did in fact repay him the money. The clothing was before binding ; so that it amounts to no more than putting a boy apprentice ready clothed. The statute means molley given for the benefit of the master; but the master in this case has no benefit: he was not obliged to clothe the boy before he was his apprentice, and this agreement was executed before the indenture was sealed.--The other three justices were of the same opinon. 2 Strange, 1132.
But it had long been a litigated questiont, Whether the
* See this case more fully, under the tille APPRENTICES, div. xiii.
+ See the cases of Pennington v Sudal, in 1 Bott, Const's ed. 488 ; K,v. Porisca, in Burrow's Sell. Cas. 834.; aud the K. v. Walton le Daie, 3 Terin. Rep. 515, 'where the questiou seoms to have been agitated, bui never solemnly settled.'
covenant of the parent or friends of an apprentice to keep and maintain him, and to provide him with clothes and other Decessaries duriog the term of his apprenticeship, was not such a benefit to the master, as was liable to the payment of the duty; and it formerly was customary at the Stamp (jice to set a value upon such covenant in order that the duty might be paid. But in the case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Leighton, Tr. 32 Geo. 3, the question came directly before the court*, and they solemnly determined that no duty is payable in respect of any such covenais, aod that the meaning of the statute is, that where any money or money's worth, as an horse or other valuable thing, is given to the master by the friends of the apprentice, by way of premium, a duty ought to be paid ; but that where meat, clothes, or the liko necessaries to be provided by the parent or friends, no duty is payable, because there is not aay thing given to the mastert. 4 Term Rep. 732.
So in the K. v. Wantage, Tr. Ter, 41 Geo.3, where a mas. ter stipolated for four-pence out of every shilling of the earn. ings of his apprentice, the court held that this was no bepe. fit to him within the statute of Anne, for which aa additional duty is to be paid, when by law he was entitled to the whole, and might be rather considered to have given up that part which he did not receive, than to have acquired any thing. i East's Rep. 601.
And as no settlement can be obtained by apprenticeship, where the daty is payable and not paidd; the servitude as an apprentice in such case cannot be considered as a service under a hiring, for the purpose of conferring a settlement ;-thus in Seljord v. Storeford, Mic. 5 Geo. 2, the pauper, while under the age of 21, was bound an apprentice to a person in Salford: the indentures were never stamped, but the apprentice served his time out under them in Salford. The sessions conceived this to be a good settlement by way of service. But the court of King's Bench, on the authority of the case of Cuerden v, Leland, quashed the order, for that servitude under indentures of appreaticeship which are not stamped, can Dover gain a settlement. 2 Bott. Const's ed. 545.
So also in Peter Church v. All Saints, Hil. 10 Geo. 3, the pauper when a boy, together with bis father, entered into an
* In this case it appeared that the apprentice had by his father been bound out an apprentice for four years, to learn the trade of a shoemaker, and that in the indenture there was a covegant by the father,
that be would, at his own charge, find and provide for his son good, competent, and sufficient meat, drink, and lodging, on every Sunday * in the year during the said term; and would provide him with clothes and apparel of all sorts (except working-aprons and shoes) and also
washing; but that no additional daty was paid on account of such covenant.
+ See this case of the K. v. Leighton, also in vol. i. under ihe title APPRENTICES, diy, xiii.
agreement in utiting (not stamped) with a cooper's widow of All Saints, that whereas the boy, with the consent of his father, is to be bound apprentice unto her for seven years, and she doth agree to pay him 25s. the first year, the four following ycars 50s, a year; the sixth year 31. ; and the seventh and last year 41. And in the margin were wrote, The boy's time to begin from the date. The pauper served two years, and received the money mentioned in the agreement for such time; then left his mistress ; no indentures of apprenticeship having been executed. It was argued, that the pauper in this case was to be considered as a sertant.---BUT BY THE COURT- An ap. prenticeship was certainly the thing in view in the present case: but there was no indeuture ever executed, nor can the agreement be estcemed to supply the want of it, as it was not stamped. Neither can it be considered in the na ure of a service; for in the case of a servant, there must be a biring for a year, as well as a service for a vear under sich hiring. And this is no contract by way of a hiring for a year; for the binding as an apprentice, cannot be converted into the hiring as a servaat. Such a construction as has been attempted, would evade the stamp act. He could not gain a settlement under the service here stated. Burrow's Selt. Cas. 656.
But in the case of the Ki v. Little Bolton, Mic. 24 Geo. 3, it was determined, that it the agreement does not in express terms import a service as an apprentice, it may be considered as a hiring and service ;-the case was thus: The pauper being settled in Liale Bollon, went into Great Bolton where a weaver lived, and asked him if he would teach him to weare counterpanes, which he said he would, if he would work with him two years and a half or three years, and the pauper's carnings were to be divided between them; the pauper was to find himself with meat, drink, washing, and clothes: he was engaged on these terms, and an agreement in writing was entered into accord. ingly; but the agreement being proved to be lost, parole evi. dence was allowed to be given of it; the pauper worked with his master under this agreement in Great Bolton, about a year and an half, and then marrying, gave him 20s. to be free: alwards he worked journey work with the same master near a year. lt was conte!ded, that the pauper had gained a settlemeut in Great Bullon, for that this had not the smallest re. semblance of a contract of apprenticeship; that the pauper was to have half his earnings from the first; that no such idea as this was ever entertained in a contract for an apprenticeship; and that this, therefore, must have been meant as wages, -- THE Court at first inclined to think that, as the pauper was to be taught, it ought to be considered as an apprenticeship; but they took time to look juto the cases, and afterwards Lord Mansfield delivered the judgment of the court: We have looked into the authorities, ani we find that all those cases of appren. ticeships, which liave been holden to be defective, and not convertible into hirings and services, speak of the pauper us an up
prentice, and that he was to serve as such ; there is no such statement here: and we are therefore of opioion that it is a good hiring and service. Caldecot's Cas. 367.
So in the K. v. Eccleston, Ea. Ter. 42 Geo. 3, the pauper who was settled at Eccleston, when of 15 years of age went into the township of Touge and Haulgh, and made a verbal agreement with a weaver of counterpanes there, to serve him a year and an hali, and the master was to teach him to weave counter. panes: the pauper was to have one half of what he earned, and was to find himself in every thing. The pauper worked under this agreement for the year and an half, except for a fortnight, during which he remained absent, but the master brought him back into his service, and obliged him to stay a fortnight over the year and a half, in order to make up the time he had been absent from his service. During the time of this service he slept constantly at his mother's house at Little Bolton--two justices removed the pauper from Little Bolton to Eccleston, and the sessions confirmed the order subject to the opinion of the court on the above facts. BY THE COURT, it is of infinite consequence in these cases that what has been once expressly d. termin. ed should be adhered to. The case of the K. v. Little Bolton is a direct authority to the present point, and not having been overruled in the K. v. Ilighham or the K. v. Rainhan it ought to gorera the present--the order, quashed. 2 East Rep. 998.
Howeverin the K. v. the Inhabitants of Highham Hil. 25 Geo. 3, where the written agreement did not in terms state an appren. ticeship, yet, as the contract was proved to have been entered into with a view to an apprenticeship, and in fraud of the revenue, the court held that the contract was not convertible, and could not beconsidered as a hiring, and as entitling to a settlement. Caldecot's Cases 371.–This case, as reported by Const. in his edition of Bott, and also again in the last part of Caldecot's Cases,is in sub. stance as follows: the pauper at 17 years of age, went to a carpen. ter at Gloucester, for the purpose of being his apprentice for four years, and paid him four guineas as a consideration : but to save the expenses of indentures and duty, he and his master signed ani agrecmedt on unstumped paper, whereby the pauper "in consideration of the weekly wages, or sums of money, and covenants therein after mentioned ; and which on the part of the master were thereinafter agreed to be paid, done and performed; he the said pauper covevanted faithfully to serte the master in the business of a carpenter for four years. And the consideration of the agreement was declared to be for the master to pay to the pauper for every weck's work 4s. 60. for the first year: for the second year 5s, and for the third and fourth year os. per week.' And it was further agreed by parole, that the pauper should tind his own diet and lodging, and be his own master on Sundays, and not be paid for the time he should absent himself from work. The question was, Whether the parties intended an apprenticeship and it was con.
tended, that it did not appear that the master ever intende an apprenticeship ; that th: pauper had first intended to become an apprentice; but changer that intention on account of the cxpense; and then both parties intended a service ; an the pauper served accordingly for four years. That the agree ment on the face of it was an express obligation to serve th whole four years : and like the case of spioning at so muc per stone. But by lord Mansfield, It is manisest, even oi the face of the written agreement, that a fraud on the revenu was intended. It is clear that an apprenticeship was meant. , servant never gives a consideration. A certain duty is impose on an agreement of this description, and this duty not havin been paid by the master as the act directs, the agreement i void. -- Ashhurst J. He is to serve as a carpenter ; that is no asazerrant - Buller J. There was no change of intention ; th whole was one transaction. Why else does the master tak the four guineas? they meant to have the advantage of an ap prenticeship without the expense. Bott, Const's ed, 495. Bot!, Const's ed. 555. Caldecott's Cas. 491.
A contract of apprenticeship may be formed without using th term apprentice : but whether a contract be a contract of ap prenticeship, or of hiring and service must depend on the in tention of the parties to be collected from the whole of th agreement; this was decided in the case of the K.v.Luindon, die Ter.40 Geo.3, which was as follows:-- the pauper had been re moved from East Horndon to Laindon, and the sessions o appeal confirmed the order of the two justices, subject to th opinion of the court on the following case the pauper bein • legally settled at Laindun, went into the parish of Ingrave i « November 1792, and after being one month upon trial with ' carpenter, in East llorndon, he entered into the followin "unstamped written agreenient witnessed and subscribed a 6 under:
“ i John Mander hereby agree with J. Claydon to serve hir " three years to learn the business of a carpenter, the first yea “ to have 1s. 24. per day, the second year to have 1s. 6d. pe “ day, the third year, 1s. Ild. per day. Witness my hand ) “ Claydon. J. Mander. Witness, Robert Beles." The pau
per proved that at the time of siguing the above agreement, h
agreed to give Mandır 3 guineas as a premium to teach hin • the said trade, and paid Munder 11. 155. u bich with 11.8s. du ' for wages during the month of trial made the three guinea: 6 and that he was not to be, and was not employed in any othe • work than that of a curpenter : the pauper worked with an • served Mander under this agreement the whole three years ' and slept the last forty nights in the parish of East Horndo ' and considered bimself as an apprentire under the said agree
ment; but he thought himself at liberty to leave his master if h • used him ill.THE COUNSEL for the appellants objecied to the pa 'rol evidence esplanatory of the abure written agreement bein 'recited, which of jection was orerruled by thesessions. The cas