A treatise of the laws for the relief and settlement of the poor

So of apprentices put out by incorporated districts.

3. Joint occu

piers, whether

which he lives, in respect of his inhabitancy; in that in which he has lands, in respect of his occupation of them. But if he find himself aggrieved, he may appeal to the sessions, and we must take it for granted that the justices will do what is right. They are to adapt the charge to the size of the property that the person possesses, and these are incidental charges which fall on him in respect of that property. (1)

The law is the same as to apprentices bound according to the 20 Geo. III. c.36., which passed for obviating doubts touching the binding and receiving of poor children apprentices, in pursuance of acts made for relief of the poor, within incorporated hundreds or districts. It enacts that "nothing in the act shall be construed to compel any person to take any such poor child apprentice, unless such person shall be an inhabitant, and occupier of lands, &c. in. the parish to which said child belongs." But the use of the words, inhabitants and occupiers, does not extend the meaning more than if the term, inhabitants, which occurs in 43 Eliz. c. 3., had been only employed. (2) "The word has been held not to be confined to resiants. And Lord Coke, in his reading on the 22 Hen. VIII. c. 5. relative to the repairing of bridges by the inhabitants of counties, says, that the word, inhabitants, includes those who occupy lands in the county, though they do not reside there. For some purposes, inhabitants and occupiers are synonimous terms. Where a person derives a benefit from property, which he occupies in a parish, he is liable to contribute to the ease of it." (3)

And a person is equally liable where he resides out of residing within the parish, and occupies premises within it jointly with or without the others who dwell there, and have apprentices bound to parish, are se them. verally liable. B. was a partner with eleven others, in a manu

(1) Eod. Jud., ibid.

(2) Rex v. Tunstead and Happing, 3 Term Rep. 523.

(3) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., ibid.

factory of earthen ware, in the township of H. The partnership was rated for lands and buildings in H. to the amount of 2701. a-year, of which 231. a-year is the appellant's share. Two of the partners resided within the township, and had each of them an apprentice. B. resided in L. a township adjoining; and upon a poor child from H. being appointed and tendered to him to be his apprentice individually, he appealed. But the court of quarter sessions, and afterwards the King's Bench, upon a case stated, held him liable to take one. For the appellant occupied lands in the parish to the amount of 231. per annum, that being his aliquot part of the whole; and in respect of that occupation, he is bound, according to the case of Rex v. Clapp, to take the apprentice. (1) It is not an occupation of the partnerships' land and houses by two of the partners, to the exclusion of the rest. Each may reside there if he pleases. (2)

And land is not the only property, in respect of which a person becomes liable to receive an apprentice. An inhabitant was held liable to receive one, for the sheaf or great tithes of the parish, although the case stated that, in respect of the said tithes, no apprentice had heretofore been bound; but that the custom of binding in that parish had been upon lands of ten pounds per annum, and upwards. (3)

4. Occupier of tithes liable,

and a custom

to the contrary immaterial.

No case determines whether a rateable inhabitant of suf- 5. Quære, whether inhaficient ability, but without real property in the parish, be bitants not occompellable to receive an apprentice. But the principle of cupiers liable. those already cited, namely that this is one mode of contributing to the sustentation of the poor, seems to extend to such cases, and decide, that all who are liable to con

(1) Rex v. Barwick, 7 Term Rep. 33.

(2) Per Lawrence J., ibid. and see Vol. I. 49. (1) and (2).
(3) Rex v. Saltern, Cald. 444.

6. A binding to a stranger

another county is valid.

tribute to the relief of the poor of the parish, must receive apprentices, provided they are enabled by their circumstances to do so. Indeed it seems to have been determined that clergymen are compellable to take them, or at least are chargeable to contribute towards putting apprentices out. (1)

A person who is neither an inhabitant nor occupier of property in the parish cannot be compelled to receive an apprentice from it; yet, if he consent to take one, the binding is good, and confers a settlement (2), although the master reside in a different county. (3)

Justices might

to 8 & 9 W.III. c. 30.

SECT. III.

Of compelling Masters to provide for their Apprentices.(4)

It seems to have been the better received opinion, that compel master to take apthe justices might force a master to take an apprentice, prentice prior prior to 8&9 W. III. c.30.; for a power to compel the master to receive him, is consequential to the authority given the justices by the statute to put him out. (5) But the point was considered as doubtful, and Lord Kenyon C. J. observes, "masters could not be compelled to

But not to provide for them.

(1) 1 Bott, 608. Pl. 841. cites Dalton, who states it upon credible information, as the opinion of all the judges.

(2) Rex v. St. Margaret's, Lincoln.

(3) Rex v. St. Nicholas, Nottingham, 2 Term Rep. 726.

(4) As to discharging an apprentice from his indentures, see ante, Vol. I. chap. xxi. sect. 3.

(5) Anon. Salk. 67. Rex v. Gillifer, T. Raym. 65. 1 Lev. 84. S. C. Henton v. Steers, T. Raym. 65. in marg. Rex r. Fairfax, 1 Show. 76. 3 Mod. 269. S. C. But see Rex v. Trevilian, 2 Str. 1268.

provide for their apprentices under 43 Eliz., and the statute 8 & 9 W. III. c. 30. was made for the purpose." (1)

It seems to have been held in one case prior to 8&9 W. III. c. 30. that as the statute has intrusted the churchwardens and overseers of the poor, by and with the approbation of two justices, to bind apprentices, the child must appear upon the face of the order to be put out by the assent of the churchwardens as well as the overseers; and the churchwardens not being mentioned in that order, it was quashed. (2) This determination proceeds on the ground that the churchwardens are to be considered as an integral part of the parish officers (3), and as having in this

(1) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Leighton, 4 Term Rep. 732. ante Vol. I. A similar act was passed relative to incorporated districts, 20 Geo. III. c. 36. See Rex v. Tunstead and Happing, 3 Term

Rep. 523. (2)

(2) Rex v. Fairfax, 3 Mod. 269.

(3) Per Lord Kenyon C. J., Rex v. Beeston, 3 Term Rep. 592. where the same great judge doubts the authority of that case. But the reports of it, Show. 76., Comb. 164., Carth. 94., state the order to be quashed on other grounds, and not upon this one. In Rex v. Beeston, supra, Lord Kenyon expressed himself thus, as to the power of the majority of parish officers to bind the whole. "I do not mean to say, that the churchwardens and overseers are technically a corporation : but as far as concerns the regulations of the poor of the parish, they stand in pari ratione. And in the instance of corporations, the act of the majority binds the whole; so much so, that the court will compel the person who has the custody of the corporate seal, to affix it to any act, according to the vote of the majority, though against the consent of such person, as was done in the case of Wadham college, Cowp. 377. However, I do not go on the grounds of this similitude; but the foundation of my opinion is this, the 43 Eliz. c. 2. has directed that the general acts to be done by the churchwardens and overseers, shall be done by the majority of them, and I think that the spirit of that statute pervades all the subsequent acts respecting the government of the poor. Besides, in common understanding, what is required to be done by the churchwardens and overseers, is satisfied by being done by a majority. And, indeed, if we were to determine otherwise, the inconvenience would be so great as to make it necessary for the legislature to interfere and pass another law. The court, therefore, held, that the assent of the

Master must

money at the

particular instance a discretionary power, separate and independent from that of the overseers chosen by the parish.

When an apprentice is effectually bound, his master provide for ap- takes him for better or worse, and is to provide for him prentice. But justices cannot in sickness and in health. (1) But the justices cannot ororder wages or der him wages during the term of his apprenticeship, or end of appren- any thing to be given him after the term is ended. (2) ticeship. And if the master dies, neither his executors nor administrators are compellable, by a justice's order, to receive and provide for an apprentice, either as a pauper (3), or, if bound under 5 Eliz. c.4. as an apprentice (4), because an apprenticeship is a personal trust between master and servant, and determined by the death of either; for instruction which is the end and design of the apprenticeship, cannot be obtained from the personal representative. (5) But covenant lies against the executor, in which there is no inconvenience, as the executor may make his defence by pleading no assets; or debts of a higher nature. (6)

majority of parish officers, was sufficient to bind the whole in a contract for maintaining the poor, under 9 Geo.I c.7. post, chap. xxxiv. s.2. As to how a certificate is to be signed by them, see ante, 167. et seq. also ante, Vol. I. 61.

(1) Rex v. Hales Owen, 1 Str. 99. Nottingham, 3 Term Rep. 726. ante.

-kirjat

A treatise of the laws for the relief and settlement of ..., Numero 788,Nide 2