ing the agreement: and if so, there was no evidence to shew 6 any consent, that the apprentice served the second maste with the consent of the executrix of the first.'-Grose, J concurred, and said the meaning of the act is; that if any per son wish to avail himself of an agreement in writing, it shall no be produced in evidence at any time unless it be stamped; this bein the case, there was no evidence to show that the executri of the first master consented to the apprentice's servin the second; and therefore the apprentice is settled in Biddenham where he served his first master 40 days.-Lawrence J. was of th same opinion.---Order of sessions confirmed. 6 Term Rep. 459

So if the master deliver up the indenture to another, and b indorsement thereon relinquish all interest in the apprentice, th apprentice by residing with such second master, gains a settleme

Thus in St. Petrox v. Stoke Fleming, Tr. 19 Geo. 2, the paup was bound a parish apprentice in St. Petrox,till her age of twe ty-one. She served there five years, when her mistress, by i dorsement on the indenture, delivered it up, together with a her right, interest, and term of years then to come and unex red in the same, to a person of Stoke Fleming; to which pers the pauper, being then of the age of fourteen, did by indentu on the same day voluntarily bind herself apprentice. She ser ed this master in Stoke Fleming from that time for several yea -The question was, Whether a settlement was gained here at Stoke Fleming.--And by THE COURT. Although the assig ment of an apprentice (except in London by custom) cant strictly be made, yet as this assignment was with the assent the mistress, the service under it will be good for the purpose gaining a setlement; for the servitude continued under the f binding. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 250.

So the express consent by parol of a first master to a serv with a second, is, for the purpose of a settlement, a legal signment of an apprentice

As in the K. v. Langham, Mic. 22 Geo. 3, the pauper was the parish officers duly bound an apprentice to a weaver woolcomber of Langham till the age of 24 years; under wh indenture he served 4 years and upwards, when the master f ed, and having no longer employment for him, told his said prentice he might go to his father at Oakham. Upon the app: tice coming home,his father and grandfather applied to one croft of Deanshold, to take the said apprentice for the rem der of the term. The father then went to the former mas who was at home under confinement, and told his wife, that had got a new master for his son; upon which the wife v up to her husband's chamber, and informed him that the fa of the apprentice was come, and said to her that he had g new master for his son; and desired the indenture might given up; upon which the master gave the indenture to his who delivered it up to the apprentice's father, the master ha first made crosses upon the indenture, as a token that he resigned up the indenture and the apprentice. At this tim

pauper was under age. Soon after, Beecroft himself went to the boy's master to ask him, whether he was willing to resign his apprentice, and to turn him over, as he was going to take him apprentice, if he was willing, and his father would clothe him. Beecroft further said to the boy's master," If things came about, he hoped he would never fetch him again :" to which the master replied.he never would; and Begroft then told him there was no occasion for a deal of trouble in turning him over, if he, the master, would be honest: and upon this he assured him he never would fetch his apprentice away; and Beecroft then declared: “If we have an agreement drawn to our satisfaction it will be better than having so much trouble about it;" and immediately went away satised, that he might keep the apprentice as a turn-over. The apprentice staid with Beecroft three years and a half by virtue of the above transaction, and an agreement entered into for that purpose between the father of the apprentice, and the new master; which agreement was made in the presence of the apprentice, but he was no party to it; and the parish officers were perfect strangers to it. The new master kept the agreement and the original indentureAnd it is admitted on both sides, that at the time the indenture was delivered up to the pauper's father, the first master considered the pauper perfectly at liberty; and that his indenture was so given up, that he might make any fresh agreement, and look. ed upon him to be quite at large.-Lord Mansfield, There is no difficulty in this case. The indenture continues in force; and the only question is, Whether the service of the second was with the consent of the first master? for if so, it is a service under the indenture. Of this there can be no doubt, for he consents expressly; he cancels the indenture, and directs it to be delivered to the father of the infant apprentice, who came to him for the purpose of this assignment; and he undertakes to the second master, that he would not reclaim him. The other judges concurred.-Order of sessions confirming the order of removal to Langham quashed. Caldecot's Cases, 126.

So also if an apprentice, with the consent of the master, hires himself as a servant to another person in a different parish, by residing there he gains a settlement.-l'hus in the K. v. Fremington, Ea. 30 Geo. 2, the pauper was bound apprentice by a parish indenture to a man in Flemington, whom she served several years; some time before her apprenticeship expired, her master told her he had no business for her, and she might go where she would ;" and on his recommendation, she was hired to a person at Sherwell from the first of June till Lady Day, at the wages of 32s. She accordingly went to serve such person in Sherwell, and lived with him there from the said first of June, till the fifteenth of November following, and received wages for that time. She then went back t› her indenture-master in Fremington, with whom she staid eight days; when her apprenticeship expired.-By lord Mansfield. It is very plain that it the pauper was not discharged from her apprenticeship: ber

'master only gave her permission to go elsewhere, and serve ano. ther person for her own benefit. She did so and afterwards she came back again to her master, and was received by him, and staid with him eight days, which was to the end of her term of apprenticeship. So that it was no more than a generous intention of her master, to give her this permission to serve the other person for her own benefit: but the apprenticeship nei. ther was, nor was intended to be discharged. Consequently the service in Sherwell was a continuation of the apprenticeship and performed under it.-The other judges concurred. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 416.

So also if an apprentice be permitted by his master to work for his own benefit in another parish, it shall be considered as a service under the indenture of apprenticeship, and he shall thereby gain a settlement. Thus in the K. v. Offerton, Ea. 15 Geo. 3, the pauper, when twelve years of age, was duly bound apprentice by the parish to a linen-weaver for seven years. The pauper served his master five years and seven months in Stockport, when he and his master entered into an agreement: "That the pauper, upon paying his master 12d. a week, and providing for himself, should be at liberty to work for his own benefit during the remainder of his apprenticeship. And the master was to find him a loom during that time; and to receive the 12d. a week as a satisfaction for the pauper's service during the remainder of his apprenticeship." The pauper was then of the age of eighteen; and immediately afterwards married: about twelve months before the apprenticeship would have expired, he removed to Offerton, where he continued to reside for above forty days, and until he was removed from thence by the order of two justices. And neither the churchwardens nor the over. seers were privy to the agreement; nor was the indenture can. celled or delivered up. The pauper worked in that place for the same tradesman who employed the master; and the master provided him with a loom; but he did not work with any per. son by the particular direction or consent of his master, but received the profits of his trade to his own use; the master knew, during all that time, when and with whom the pauper was working; and at several times demanded of him the 12d. a week which the pauper was not able to pay.-THE COURT were of opinion, that the apprenticeship coutinued; there was no dissolution of it, nor intention to dissolve it. As between the original master and the apprentice, the master knew that the apprentice worked in Offerton, and demanded the twelve-pence a-week for it; an apprentice may work in any parish with the consent of his master; and it is probable that the tradesman with whom he worked, knew that he was an apprentice, for that tradesman employed the master. They held therefore, that the service in Offerton was under the indenture of apprenticeship. Burrow's Sett. Cas. 802.

So also in the K. v. Bradninch, Tr. 24 Geo. 3. the pauper was bound a parish apprentice in Bradninch, until the age of

twenty-four. He lived with his master there until the age of twenty two, when the master agreed that if he would give him one guinea in hand, and one guinea a-year during the continuance of his apprenticeship, the pauper should go and serve where he pleased. But the master said, he should not deliver the indenture, nor discharge him from his apprenticeship. The pauper agreed to this, and paid his master a guinea in hand. He then went into Gittisham and lived with his father, paying him 6d, a week for his lodging; he afterwards hired himself as a day labourer to a Mi-s. Sunthill, and continued to lodge with his father and serve his mistress, ull the expiration of his ap prenticeship. At the end of the first year of his serving her, he went to his master and paid him one guinea for that year, according to the agreement. His master said, "You continue to work for Miss Santhill? I think it a very good place, and hope you will continue in it." At the end of the second year, he went and paid his master the other guinea, when he said, "You still continue to work with Miss Santhill?" He replied," he did;" when his master said, he would look out for. the indenture and give it him.—It was insisted, that from these circumstances, it appeared that the master had notice of the service and consented to it.-And by lord Mansfield and the Court. There can be no doubt in this case. The pauper was certainly not sui juris, for he would not have paid a guinea a year. Order of sessions, confirming the order of removal to Bradninch, quashed. 2 Bott, Const's ed. 594. Cald. Cases,

461.

But unless the apprentice has the express leave and consent of his master to hire himself out, he will gain no settlement by a service under the hiring.-Thus in the K. v. Austrey, Hil. 31 Geo. 2, the pauper was at the age of ten, bound apprentice by the parish-officers to a person in Grindon; he served and inhabited with his master in Grindon for some years; when the master, in consideration of 40s. then paid him by the pauper, agreed to discharge him from his apprenticeship; which receipt and discharge was indorsed and written by the master on the back of the said indenture; which he then delivered up to the pauper. The pauper then left his said master, and hired him. self for a year,and served for a year,at the parish of Higham. Afterwards he hired himself for a year in the parish of Austrcy, and served the said year in the said parish. But it appeared that the pauper was under age at the time of his consenting to the discharge. -By lord Mansfield. There is nothing in this case, as the pauper was under age. It is exactly upon the same foot, as if he had given no consent at all; for the consent of an infant apprentice can signify nothing,nor be of any validity. Then if his consent is of no validity,and as nothing at all, his subsequent services, under the hirings stated in the order, can never be considered as performed by the master's leave and consent,' and so as being a service of his master under the indenture; because this is no express and explicit leave and consent given by the particular master to theser

master had assigned over this apprentice to a particular person,it would have gained him a settlement as a servant to the first master. This working in St. Leonard's was not carrying on the business of the first master there, or serving under the original apprenticeship.-Yates J. was of the same opinion. He could not gain a settlement there, by serving in that parish under a contract which he was not juris to make. It differs from an assignment of an ap prentice to serve a particular master in another parish. That indeed may be deemed a service of his first master in that parish." But here was no privity between the first master, and the others whom he served after he had quitted the first. It was a liberty given by the master to the apprentice "to go where "he would, and work for himself where he would." Therefore the settlement continued to be in that parish where he had last served his first master as an apprentice for forty days, which was in St. Luke's. Burrow's Set. Cas. 542.

So also in Notton v. Roystone, Mic. 9 Geo. 3, the pauper was bound a parish apprentice to a widow, and occupier of a farm in Heendly. After he had served about six years, she quitted the farm to her son, and left the pauper there with him; the pauper lived with her son several years; and then being desirous to leave the service, he applied to his master, who told him, he might go where he pleased; whereupon he left his master, and hired himself to different places: but did not continue in any of them twelve months. In May 1766, the master gave up his indentures to him; and in February 1767, the pauper hired himself to a person at Notton; which his master being told of in conversation,said, he thought it a good place for him. He served at Notion about forty days, and then attained his age of twenty-four years. It was insisted, that the service in Notton was no service under the indenture of apprenticeship; the pauper hired himself, as being sui juris, the master did not consent to the pauper's serving any parti. 'cular person,' he was not even consulted about it: and when he heard of it, he only said, he thought it a good place for him, and he had before given him a general leave to go where he would.—THE COURT were clearly of opinion, that the service in Notton was not a service under the indentures of apprenticeship; consequently, his residence in that parish upwards of forty days was not sufficient to gain the apprentice a settlement there. Burrow's Set. Cas. 629.

the

So in the K.. the inhabitants of Crediton, Mic. Ter. 41 Geo. 3. the sessions on appeal, confirmed an order of two justices, removing the pauper from North Norton to Crediton, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case pauper was bound apprentice to a master whom he served above 40 days in Crediton the master failing in business told the pauper he had no further employment for him, and he might go where he pleased; afterwards and before leaving his mas