K. v. East Knoyle, Tr. 13 & 14 Geo. 2, the sessions-order thus stated the case. And it appears to this court upon the evidence now given, that the pauper was bound an apprentice by indenture to a cordwainer of East Knoyle (which is about 50 miles from London); and that he served three years at East Knoyle aforesaid under the said apprenticeship; a which time the master died: and that the sum of 57. (being the full consideration-money) was paid by his father with the said apprentice for such his binding; but the indentures of appren ticeship were not produced; neither did it appear to this court whether the duty of six pence in the pound directed to be paid by the statute 8 Ann. c. 9. was paid, or whether the said inden tures were stamped as the said act requires. It was observe that the justices had admitted evidence which was not lega That they had admitted parole evidence of an indenture, whic they state not to have been produced, and had not given an reason why it was not produced; nor did it appear to the That the duty was paid, or whether the indentures were stampe But Mr. J. Page, and Mr. J. Chappel (the only two judges court) over-ruled the objection, and refused to make a ru to shew cause. For it is stated that it appeared to them th he was bound an apprentice; and it is not necessary that th evidence should appear to us. Perhaps the indenture w lost and in that case, could the justices receive no other ev dence of the binding? And as to the duty and the stam

་

This was t

evidence to show what has become of it, is insufficient. case of the K. v. the Inhabitants of Castleton, Ea. Term, 35 Geo. Two justices removed a pauper from Castleton to Bomford; on app the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of the court King's Bench on the following case; The pauper was alledged to ha been bound apprentice to a person inCastleton, by indentures bearing d in or about the year 1780. It was proved on the part of Castleton, t there were two parts of the indenture of apprenticeship,one partwhe of remained with the parish officers of Castleton, and which had be destroyed, and the other part was given to the master, who delive the same, to Miss Taylor,of Bomford at the time of theassignment her after mentioned. Application was made to Miss Taylor,for that || of the indenture so delivered to her, who, on such application, s that she could not find the same, nor did she know where it w • Miss Taylor was living, but was not subpœnaed to the court of sess as a witness, to produce that part of the indenture which had b ⚫ delivered to her, or to give any account of the same being lost.' master had by parol assigned the pauper to Miss Taylor in Bomf and the pauper, with the first master's consent, served her in Bom upwards of 40 days. The court of sessions were of opinion that above was not sufficient evidence of the indenture of apprentices! The only question was whether that part of the indenture of app ticeship which was delivered to Miss Taylor, was properly accou for. THE COURT thought the case too clear for argument, and that if the indenture could not be produced, evidence must be add to shew that it was lost or destroyed. Here it was traced to the b of Miss Taylor, and no further evidence was given to shew what become of it. Order of sessions confirmed. 6 Term Rep. 236.

they do not say the duty was not paid; or that the indenture was not stamped. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 151.

St. Helen's v. St. Saviour's, Tr. 22 & 23 Geo. 2, the order of sessions among other facts stated, that the mother of the pauper gave evidence, that her son was bound apprentice to his grandfather by indenture for seven years; and that the same was delivered to the grandfather, as she had been informed by her son; but she never saw such indenture herself; and knew nothing of it but from the information of her son; It was reputed in the family, that he was an apprentice, and was so described in the grandfather's will. It appeared that he served his grandfather five years in St. Helen's under the indenture; and that after the grandfather's death, application was made at his house for the indenture of apprenticeship; but it was then said, that it could not be found; it did not appear that there was any other application or search to find out the indenture; nor was any evidence given that it was lost, save as aforesaid : and the indenture was not produced. But it appeared upon other evidence, that the grandfather employed a person to draw an indenture of apprenticeship between him and the pau. per; and that accordingly the form of an indenture, upon a common sheet of paper not stamped, was copied from an old one, only altering the names; which indenture was executed in the presence of two witnesses, but never stamped. It also appeared that the pauper, upon the death of his grandfather, refused to serve the widow and executrix, on account of the paper-writing not being stamped. One of the objections was, that there is only parole evidence of an indenture, which ought itself to have been produced.---BY THE COURT. Clearly, there is not enough stated to show that there is a binding within the act. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 735.

christian name was

The K. v. St. Michael's, Bath, Hil. 13 Geo. 3, it was proved by the pauper, that he heard her husband declare, that he went apprentice to one Morley of St. Michael's in Bath, whose Thomas, as she believed; that he served him about four years, and then ran away and listed for a soldier; went to Ireland,and afterwards came to Bedford; where he mar ried the pauper? that he cohabitated with her three quarters of a year; then left her, and was never seen or heard of afterwards. The examination of her husband taken upon oath under the mutiny act shortly after his marriage, was produced: and it thereby appeared that he had deposed, that he went apprentice to James Morley as a plusterer at St. Michael's in Lath, with whom he lived five years and a half, and then enlisted. Opposed to this evidence, it was proved that one James Marley, a plasterer in St. Michaelmas, Bath, died there Lim as a journeyman until his death, often heard him say, that about eight years before; that the witness, who worked with He never would take an apprentice, for he was a single man, and only a lodger himself; and he said that to the best of his Knowledge he never had an apprentice in his life:

that Johre

Now far the

an indenture

the binding.

Morley, brother of the said James, also a plasterer, never had an apprentice, to the best of his knowledge, and has divers times given a like reason for it. The pauper having been removed by order of two justices to St. Michael's, the sessions confirmed that order; it was therefore moved to quash the order of sessions, upon the ground that the justices had drawn a wrong conclusion from the evidence. But by lord Mansfield, I do not think they have drawn a wrong conclusion. The presumption from a man's serving four years as an apprentice, is that he was bound. Aston J. In the case of St. Helen's it was found that there was no indenture, and it did not appear that any inquiry was made after an indenture, therefore the court had no ground to presume a binding. Here the man is run away, and he swore that he was an apprentice ;' the question is, Whether the court wil imply that there was an indenture? There is a very reasona ble presumption of a binding,' and every thing is to be presum ed in favour of a settlement, Willes J. We are not to pre sume that the apprenticeship was by parole; the presumption is the contrary way. Ashhurst J. of the same opinion. discharged. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 618.

Rul

And if the opposite party produce an indenture, on notice gi counterpart of ven to them for that purpose, it may be read without an is evidence of proof of the execution; this was determined in the case C the K. v. Middlezoy, Tr. 27 Geo. 3. The pauper was remove from Middlezoy to Sydbury. On appeal, the sessions quashe the order subject to the opinion of the court on the followin case: The appellants (Sydbury) proved a hiring and servic of the pauper for a year in Middlezoy; the respondents (Mic lezoy) proposed to shew that a settlement could not be gaine thereby, by reason of subsisting indentures of the pauper apprenticeship to a person of Sydbury, at the time of suc hiring and service. They had given a notice to the appe lants (Sydbury) to produce at the trial of the appeal, the inder ture, and an indenture was accordingly produced in court i the appellants (Sydbury) with proper seals and signature but no subscribing witness thereto; and no evidence was a duced by the respondents (Middlezoy) to prove the sealing a delivery; whereupon it was contended by the appellants (Sy bury)that the same could not be given in evidence without pro ing the execution thereof; to which it was answered, that, co ing from their hands, it ought to be received in evidence agai the party producing it, without proof of the execution. sessions being of that opinion, refused to admit the same in e T dence without such proof. The respondents (Middlezoy) th produced the counterpart duly executed, and tendered the sa in evidence; but the sessions also refused to admit the cou terpart. The pauper served in Sydbury for more than two ye subsequent to the date of the indentures; and afterwards, bef the term thereof expired, without any consent of the mast served for a year as aforesaid, in Middlezoy. Ashhurst J. ‹' sessions have done wrong in refusing to admit this evidence,'

cause as the indentures came out of the hands of the appellants, they were concladed from saying they were not properly executed. Buller J. I do not go the whole length of saying, that the production of them by the appellants was conclusive against them, but undoubtedly they ought to have been received. In civil actions, where a plaintiff wishes to give in evidence, a deed in the defendant's custody, he gives the defendant notice to produce it; and the deed when produced, must prima facie be taken to be duly executed, because the plaintiff, not know. ing who are the subscribing witnesses, cannot come prepared at the trial to prove the execution. Therefore an instrument coming out of the hands of the opposite party, must be taken to be proved.-Grose J. This evidence should undoubtedly have been received, though it might not be conclusive, as if it had been impeached on the ground of fraud: but still it was good evidence. If the indentures had not been produ ced, the counterpart would have been sufficient evidence... Or. der of sessions quashed. 2 Term. Rep. 41. Buller's Nisi Pri. 8vo. ed. 254.

an apprentice

In the K. v. Cirencester, Hil. 10 Geo. 1, it was stated, An apprentice that an apprentice was bound in the parish of 4, and lived must reside there, off and on, for three quarters of a year-EXCEPTION was forty days as taken, that this was no settlement, since he might not inhabit under the in• forty days together. BUT BY THE COURT, That is not ne- dentures to cessary; and as it is stated that he was up and down three gain u settlequarters of a year with his master, there is room to intend ment. he was resident forty days. 1 Strange 579. Cas. Sett. & Rem. 119.

And inhabitation at different periods, though a new settlement may have intervened, may be connected so as to make a forty days residence under the indentures; and the settlement shall be in that place where the pauper last lodged. Thus, in the K. v. Sandford, Tr. 26 Geo. 3, the pauper at the age of eleven, was bound a parish apprentice to a person in Bishopetanton, until the age of twenty-four. He lived there with his master for five years, when his master gave him up his indenture, and recommended him to live with a person of Chittlehampton; with whom the apprentice accordingly made an agreement as a servant for three years. About the expi ration of that time, the apprentice returned into Biskopstawton, where his master still resided, and lived with a butcher there, with his master's knowledge, for about three months, when he went back to his master's house,aud lived with him for a month, paying him sixpence a week for his lodging.-TuE COURT were of opinion, that the times of service may be coupled as well in the case of an apprentice as of a servant, and therefore that by connecting the last month's service with the former service, the pauper gained a settlement by an inhabitation of forty days under the indenture in Bishopstawton. 2 Bott, Cont's ed. 559. 1 Term Rep, 281.

So in the K. v. the Inhabitants of Brighton, Ea. 23 Geo, 3. the pauper was bound apprentice to a weaver of Alfriston,

cou

to serve from third November, 1774, for seven years: he entered accordingly into the apprenticeship, and served and resided with his master in Alfriston until ninth July, 1781 from that time until twenty-first September following, he served and resided, by direction of his master, in a shop hired by his master, in the parish of Brighton. He then returned to, and continued to serve and reside with his master in Alfriston until twentysecond October following, when he was sent by his master to his master's father in the parish of West Grinstaed, to serve out his apprenticeship, where he resided until third November following, when his apprenticeship expired.-By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. It is my wish, that where a point has been once sidered as settled, it should not again be brought into dispute With regard to the present question there seems to be some contradiction in the cases; but the modern authorities are almos all uniform, that the forty days service need not be successive but that residences at different times may be coupled together and that the party is settled where the last day's service is provided there be forty days service in the whole in that place With these decisions, therefore, 1 acquiesce, because these subject should not remain in doubt. Ashhurst J. If a rule be once estab lished, it should be adhered to, unless it be glaringly absurd Now according to all the modern authorities, it is not necessa ry that the forty days residence should be successive, b they may be coupled together, so as to make forty day in the whole, and the settlement is fixed where the servant sleep the last night, if there be a residence of forty days in that paris in the whole. Buller and Grose, Justices, were of the same op nion. Order of sessions confirming the order of removal Brighton, quashed. 5 Term Rep. 188.

And an apprentice gains a settlement where he serves t last forty days, although the master has no settlement in t parish; for the settlement in this case does not depend on t settlement of the master: thus in St. Bride's v. St. Saviour Hil. 4 Ann. B was bound apprentice for four years to J and lived out the four years at St. Bride's with him. JS v only a lodger, and had no settlement there. THE COURT h the apprentice to be well settled in St. Bride's, for he was T a person removable; nor does his settlement depend on his m ter, as that of a wife on her husband; but he gains a sett ment for himself by forty days inhabitation. 2 Salk. 533.

So in Walbourn v. All Saints, Tr. 9 June, the single qu tion as to this order was, Whether if a man be bound an prentice where the master had a settlement, and his master a he remove, and he serve five years of his time in the par where his master had no settlement, the apprentice shall g a settlement where he was bound and served two years, where he served the last five years? Powell, J. It matters whether the master had any settlement or no; the appren will certainly have a settlement in the parish where he ser