seers, but he only applied 5s. of it according to his agreement, converting the remaining 158. 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 20%. 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 consideration money was not subject to the duty imposed by that statute, as it was advanced by the parish officers 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 inhabitant of Northowram, 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 50s. 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 money 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 scaled. The other three justices were of the same opinon. 2 Strange, 1132.

was

But it had long been a litigated question+, Whether the

* See this case more fully, under the title APPRENTICES, div. xiii. + See the cases of Pennington v Sudul, in 1 Bott, Const's ed. 488; K, v. Portsea, in Burrow's Sell. Cas. 834.; and the K. v. Walton le Dale, 3 Term. Rep. 515, where the question seems to have been agitated, but 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 necessaries during the term of his apprenticeship, was not such a beaent to the master, as was liable to the payment of the duty; and it formerly was customary at the Stamp Office 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 covenants, and 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 like necessaries to be provided by the parent or friends, no duty is payable, because there is not any thing given to the mastert. 4 Term Rep. 732.

So in the K. v. Wantage, Tr. Ter. 41 Geo. 3, where a master stipulated for four-pence out of every shilling of the earnings of his apprentice, the court held that this was no benefit to him within the statute of Anne, for which an 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. 1 East'e Rep. 601.

And as no settlement can be obtained by apprenticeship, where the duty is payable and not paid; the servitude as an apprentice in such case cannot be considered as a service under a biring, for the purpose of conferring a settlement;—thus in Salford v. Storeford, Mie. 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 apprenticeship which are not stamped, can never gain a settlement. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 545.

So also in Peter Church ▼. All Saints, Hil. 10 Geo. 3, the pauper when a boy, together with his 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 covenant by the father, ⚫that he 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 the title APPRENTICES, div, xiii.

agreement in writing (not stamped) with a cooper's widow of All Saints, that whereus 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 years 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 dare 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 servant.--BUT BY THE COURT,- An apprenticeship was certainly the thing in view in the present case: but there was no indenture ever executed, nor can the agreement be esteemed to supply the want of it, as it was not stamped. Neither can it be considered in the nature of a service; for in the case of a servant, there must be a hiring for a year, as well as a service for a year under such 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 servant. 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 Sett. Cas. 656.

But in the case of the K. 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 Little Bolton, went into Great Bolton where a weaver lived, and asked him if he would teach him to weave counterpanes, which he said he would, if he would work with him two years and a half or three years, and the pauper's earnings 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 accordingly; but the agreement being proved to be lost, parole evidence 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: afwards he worked journey work with the same master near a year. It was contended, that the pauper had gained a settlement in Great Bolton, 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 into the cases,and afterwards Lord Mansfield delivered the judgment of the court: We have looked into the authorities, and we find that all those cases of apprenticeships, which have been holden to be defective, and not convertible into hirings and services, speak of the pauper as an up

prentice, and that he was to serve as such; there is no such statement here: and we are therefore of opinion 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 agree ment with a weaver of counterpanes there, to serve him a year and an half, and the master was to teach him to weave counterpanes: 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 determin 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. Highham or the K. v. Rainhan it ought to govern the present-the order. quashed. 2 East Rep.

298.

However in the K.v. the Inhabitants of Highham Hil. 25 Geo. 3, where the written agreement did not in terms state an apprenticeship, yet, as the contract was proved to have been entered into with a view to an apprenticeship, and infraud of the revenue, the court held that the contract was not convertible, and could not be considered as a hiring, and as entitling to a settlement. Caldecot's Caser 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 substance as follows: the pauper at 17 years of age, went to a carpenter 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 an agreement 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 covenanted faithfully to 'serve 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 week's work 4s. 6d. for the first year; for the second year 5s. and for the third and fourth year 6s. per week.' And it was further agreed by parole, that the pauper should find 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, Wacther the parties intended an apprenticeship? and it was con.

tended, that it did not appear that the master ever intended an apprenticeship; that the pauper had first intended to become an apprentice; but changed that intention on account of the expense; and then both parties intended a service; and the pauper served accordingly for four years. That the agreement on the face of it was an express obligation to serve the whole four years and like the case of spinning at so much per stone. But by lord Mansfield, It is manifest, even on the face of the written agreement, that a fraud on the revenue was intended. It is clear that an apprenticeship was meant. A servant never gives a consideration. A certain duty is imposed on an agreement of this description, and this duty not having been paid by the master as the act directs, the agreement is void. Ashhurst J. He is to serve as a carpenter; that is not as a vervant-Buller J. There was no change of intention; the whole was one transaction. Why else does the master take the four guineas? they meant to have the advantage of an apprenticeship without the expense. 1 Bott, Const's ed, 495. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 555. Caldecott's Cas. 491.

A contract of apprenticeship may be formed without using the term apprentice: but whether a contract be a contract of apprenticeship, or of hiring and service must depend on the intention of the parties to be collected from the whole of the agreement; this was decided in the case of the K.v.Laindon,Mie. Ter.40 Geo.3, which was as follows:-the pauper had been removed from East Horndon to Laindon, and the sessions on appeal confirmed the order of the two justices, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case- the pauper being legally settled at Laindon, went into the parish of Ingrave in November 1792, and after being one month upon trial with a carpenter, in East Horndon, he entered into the following unstamped written agreement witnessed and subscribed as • under:

"i John Mander hereby agree with J. Claydon to serve him "three years to learn the business of a carpenter, the first year "to have 1s. 24. per day, the second year te have 1s. 6d. per "day, the third year, 1s. 11d. per day. WITNESS my hand J. "Claydon. J. Mander. Witness, Robert Beles." The pan. per proved that at the time of siguing the above agreement, he agreed to give Mander 3 guineas as a premium to teach him the said trade, and paid Munder 11. 15s. which with 17.8s. due for wages during the month of trial made the three guineas, and that he was not to be, and was not employed in any other ' work than that of a curpenter: the pauper worked with and 'served Mander under this agreement the whole three years, and slept the last forty nights in the parish of East Horndon and considered himself as an apprentice under the said agreement; but he thought himself at liberty to leave his master if he • used him ill.THE COUNSEL for the appellants objected to the parol evidence explanatory of the above written agreement being ' received, which objection was overruled by thesessions. The case