the father receives the wages.-Order of removal to Stretton, quashed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 54. Caldecot's Cases, 487.

So if a child be placed by the parent, on account of his po verty and inability to maintain it, in the poor house, this is not to be considered as emancipation.-The K. v. Broadhem. bury, Hil. 25 Geo. 3. The pauper's father was settled at Broadhembury, and while settled there, the pauper when at ten years of age was rendered incapable of work by her hands being burnt off. The father being unable to maintain her, pro. cured her to be maintained by the parish, and she was ac cordingly placed in the work house, being then twenty year of age. She remained there till the year 1784, when the father having gained a new settlement at Ottery St. Mary's she wa removed from Broadhembury to that place. It was contender that this amounted to an emancipation of the pauper before th father gained a settlement in St. Mary Ottery.—But by lor Mansfield. There is no colour for it: it is nothing like a emancipation. The child is not even in service. The only a of emancipation is the parish keeping her in the workhouse but the father was very poor, and being unable to keep h she goes to the parish, and they maintain her in his stead.The other judges concurred. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 78. Culd cole's Cases, 498.

So a child who leaves its father's family when only fi years old, and lives with different relations till ten, is not ema cipated; but shall follow the settlement of the father, if it h not gained any settlement in its own right.-The K. v. 0 church, Hil. 29 Geo. 3. A man and his wife were remov from Thurlaston to Offchurch; which order was affirmed by t sessions on appeal, subject to the opinion of the court or case reserved. The father of the pauper was setiled at Offchur the pauper was born there in 1765, and resided with his father u til 1770: the father then removed to Southam, and afterwards. 1773, to Ladbroke, at which place he gained a settlement. pauper's father leaving Offchurch in 1770, he was left wit person at Offchurch to be taken care of; his father pay for his lodging and board. The pauper continued there two years, and then went to, and resided with his uncle, also lived at Offchurch, and continued to reside with him ab two years; during which time his uncle provided him v board, clothes, lodging, and pocket money; and he wor with his uncle, but received no wages, and was not hired servant. At the end of two years he went to his father' Ladbroke, and staid there a week, and then went to reside another uncle at Weston, with whom he lived six years, a had done at his other uncle's, this uncle also providing him board, clothes, lodging, and pocket-money; and he workin him without having been hired as a servant, or receiving wages On leaving this last uncle, he went and lived three w with his father at Ladbroke.-Lord Kenyon, Ch. J. question is, Whether the son continued to be part of bi

ther's family during the time his father resided at Ladbroke, so as to be entitled to the benefit of his father's settlement? This is the weakest case of emancipation that was ever attempted to be made out. When the father left the parish of Offchurch, the son was only five years old: now it cannot be pretended that at that time he was emancipated, and yet he then ceased to reside in his father's family. It is also stated, that about two years - afterwards, when he was about seven or eight years old, and past the age of a nurse.child, he went to live with an uncle. Then, was he emancipated at that time? Ordinarily speaking, one of these things must happen before the son can be said to be emancipated: Either he must have obtained a settlement for himself, or have become the head of a family, or at most he must have arrived at that age when he may set up in the world for himself. But here the son does not fall within either of these descriptions: no time can be stated when the emancipation may be said to have commenced. For when he went to live with his uncle, he was only eight years old at the most; and he could gain no settlement either by living with that uncle, or his other uncle, as a servant, because the case states that he was not hired as a servant by either of them. Now during all this time the father had a right to the custody of the son and might have obtained him by habeas corpus; for the parental care was not then done away. It is not necessary in these cases of derivative settlements that the child should remove with the father from place to place; for the settlement of the father will be communicated to the child; otherwise children, who are sent out into the world for education, and are of course separated for a time from the father, might lose the benefit of their father's settlement, and when they were about to return home would find themselves excluded from parental care, if their_parents had in the mean time gained a new settlement. How long the power of communicating a derivative settlement may continue it is not necessary to determine, for in this case it certainly remained longer than till the child was nine or ten years old; and that is suficient for the determination of this question. The other judges assenting, order quashed. 3 Term. Rep. 114.

So a boy bound at sixteen years of age to serve as an apprentice for four years, and actually serving that time, has (the in. denture being void) been held not to be emancipated, butentitled to the settlement acquired by his father during the time he was serving under the indentures.-The K. v. Edgeworth, Tr. 29 Geo. 3, a man and his family were removed from Castleton to Edgeworth, and the sessions on appeal confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of the court. The father of the paper (not being settled at Edgeworth), when the son was about thirteen or fourteen years old, came to live there upon a tenement of the yearly value of 57. and resided there about two years; during which time he put out the pauper to a person of Spotland, for four years, to learn the trade of a wool

comber. The pauper accordingly left his father's house, to which he never afterwards returned but as a guest, and resided with and worked for his master at Spotland for the four years; and by him was provided all that time with meat, drink, washing, lodging, and clothes; and was considered by his mother as part of the master's family. During those four years the pauper was sometimes a quarter or half a year without seeing his father or mother, on which occasions he came to his father's on a Saturday evening, and returned home to his master's either on the Sunday evening or Monday morning following. After the expiration of the four years he never returned to his father's family, but worked at his trade at different places about the country, and supported himself thereby, until he afterwards married, and resided with his wife and family in a house of his own. After the pauper was put out, and before the four years expired, the father took another tenement in Edgeworth of the yearly value of 8. which he occupied with the former tenement for a year, whereby he gained a settlement at Edgeworth. The pauper never gained any settlement for himself; and the question was, Whether he followed his father's settlement at Edgeworth? This case was sent down to be re-stated, whether the The sessions repauper had been apprenticed by indenture.

turned, that the pauper had been put out apprentice by indenture, which was void for want of the stamp for the additional duty. This case was argued last Hilary Term upon the ground of emancipation, as well as upon the other point relative to the indenture of apprenticeship.- THE COURT (without hearing any argument) now discharged the rule for quashing the order of sessions. 3 Term Rep. 354. 4 Term Rep. 218.

So if a child leaves his father's family at nineteen years of age, and serves a year under a hiring in an extraparochial place. and at the end of the year returns unmarried and under age as by such service he has gained no settlement in his own right. he shall still be considered as part of his father's family.-Th K. v. Collingbourn Ducis, ilil. 31 Geo. 3, the pauper was bor in Collingbourn Kingston, where his father and mother were re siding under a certificate from Froxfield. At the age of nine teen he was hired for a year to serve at Buckholt Farm, as carter, which he served accordingly. But Buckholt Farm i extraparochial; is not a township, or vill; and has no parish officers. After he had served the year at Buckholt, he returned to Collingbourn Kingston, and then, being married, under age and not having gained a settlement in his own right, was hire to and served a person of that parish for a year. The court of ses sions were of opinion that he was not emancipated, and that th certificate was not discharged so as to enable him to gain a set tlement in Collingbourn Kingston by hiring and service, an quashed the order of removal.—By lord Kenyon: I am not abl to distinguish this case from the principle laid down in the K. It was there held, that a perso Witton cum Teambrookes.

*

* See p. 27 supra.

under age, who after being absent from his father's family for a considerable time returned to it before he was an adult, or married, and before he had acquired a settlement for himself, was not emancipated, but was entitled to the benefit of his father's settlement. So in this case the son returned before he had attained the age of 21, not having gained any settlement for him. self distinct from that of his father *, nor having become the head of a family; and therefore this case must be governed by that of Witton cum Twambrookes. The distinction which has been attempted to be taken between some of the former cases and the present, that here the son put himself out to service, is not material: for till the age of 21, not having done either of the acts above alluded to, he continued a part of his father's family +-The other judges agreed. Order of sessions confirmed. 4 Term Rep. 199.

III. Settlement by apprenticeship.

on complaint by the churchwar.

Statutes relating to settle.

By 13 & 14 Car. 2. c. 12, * dens or overseers of the poor, within forty days after any went by

* person shall come to settle in any parish, on any tenement apprenticeship. ander 10%. a year, two justices (1 Qu.) may remove him to the

place where he was last legally settled either as a native,

* householder, sojourner, APPRENTICE, or servant, for the space of forty days at the least; [which forty days continuance of such person in a parish to make a settlement shall be reckoned not from the time of his coming to inhabit, but from the publication of a notice in writing, which he shall deliver of his abode and family to the churchwarden or overseer, and which shall be read publicly in the church or chapel of the parish or town, immediately after divine service on the next 'Lord's day 1 Jac. 2. c. 17. s. 3. 3 Will. & Mar. c. 11. But by 3 & 4 Will. & Mar. c. 11, if any person shall be bound AN APPRENTICE by indenture, and inhabit in any town or parish, sach binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement, though no such notice in writing be delivered • and published §.'

ed.

And by 31 Geo. 2. c. 11, no person who shall be bound ap

Beckholt not being a parish wherein a settlement could be gainAnd consequently settled at Froxfield, from whence the father was certificated.

For the statutes relating to notices, see the head Settlement by notice, and forty days residence, infra.

In this case it would be to no end to deliver notice; for as the apprentice is from the nature of the contract to remain with the master, be cannot be removed from him by any act, or upon any complaint of the overacers; and being thus irremoveable, he must, by a residence of 40 days, gain a settlement.

What will be

prentice by any deed, writing, or contract, NOT INDENTED *, being first legally stamped, shall be liable to be removed from the town, parish, or place, where he or she shall have been so bound an apprentice and resident forty days, by virtue of any order of removal, by two justices, or by virtue of any order of the general or quarter sessions, by reason of such contract not being indented only.

Hwever it is ENACTED by 9 & 10 Will. 3. c. 11, that no 6 person who shall come into any parish by CERTIFICATE, shal be adjudged by any act whatsoever, to have procured a lega < settlement in such parish, unless he shall bona fide take a leas of a tenement of the value of ten pounds, or shall execute som annual office in such parish [and of course not by an appren ticeship].

Also by 12 Ann. stat. 1. c. 18, if any person who shall at ter 24th June 1713. be AN APPRENTICE bound by indentur to any person who shall reside in any parish, township, o place by CERTIFICATE, and not afterwards having gained a le gal settlement in such parish, township or place; such ar PRENTICE, by virtue of such apprenticeship,indenture,or bind ing, shall not gain any settlement in such parish, townshi or place;' but shall have his settlement in such paris township or place, as if he had not been bound apprentic

s. 2.

And by 33 Geo. 3. c. 54, no person who shall be AN A PRENTICE to any person who shall come into any parish, tow ship or place, under a certificate from any BENEFIT SOCIETY and not afterwards having gained a legal settlement ther shall gain any settlement in such place by reason of such a prenticeship or binding; but all such apprentices shall ha their settlements in such parish, township, or place, as they had not been bound to such person. s. 24.

If an apprentice be bound to one who has no right to ta a good binding, an apprentice, yet the apprentice will gain a settlement und such an indenture by his service. Viner's Abr. tit. Appr (K) pl. 12.

Therefore if a person is bound apprentice to a master who an infant under age, yet the indenture of apprenticeship is absolutely void on account of the infancy of the parties, 1 only voidable, and the apprentice serving under the indent is intitled to the benefit of the apprenticeship, and may cor quently gain a settlement thereby-The K. v. St. Petrox Dartmouth, Hil. 31 Geo. 3. 4 Term Rep. 196.

So where a poor boy of fourteen years of age bound him

*For it had been determined in the cases of the K. v. Mellingh Tr. 5 & 6 Geo. 2. 1 Sess. Cas. 417, and the K. v. Mawnum, Hi Geo. 2. Burrow's Sett. Cus. 290, that if the binding was not by denture, the apprentice could not, according to the above stat. & 4 Will & Mar, gain a settlement by the service.

See title FRIENDLY SOCIETIES, in vol. ii,