1824. The KING v. The INHABITANTS LE-BONE. which any information upon the subject could be obtained. Search, therefore, was absolutely useless, for no hope could be entertained either that the indenture itself, or any will of Benson, the master, or any person who had acted either as his executor or administrator, would be discovered. of ST. MARYIt will be said that search should have been made at the Stamp-office, to ascertain whether any such indenture had been registered as having been stamped there. But, in the first place, evidence of that search, and of the result of it, would have been in the nature of hearsay evidence, and therefore open to objection; and secondly, even if admitted, it would not have gone the length of proving that any such indenture had really ever been executed. Such a search might, indeed, have been impracticable; for the commissioners might not have granted liberty to make it, aud there is no law which compels them so to do. Such evidence would stand on a very different footing from that of the enrolment of a deed under the statute of Uses, which latter is of itself a record, and therefore free from all objection. Neither was such a search necessary, because in Rex v. Long Buckby (a), where an indenture, executed thirty years before, in the county of Northampton, was proved to have been delivered to the apprentice at the expiration of his time, and lost, and the parish in which he was settled by service under it, had relieved and otherwise treated him as a parishioner for the last twelve years previous to the appeal; the Court was of opinion, that the Sessions, under these circumstances, were right in presuming that the indenture had been regularly enrolled and stamped, although the other side proved, by the deputy-register and comptroller of the apprentice duties, that it did not appear that any such indenture had been stamped with the premiumstamp from 1773 to 1805. The presumption of law is to be favored, and against this negative evidence by the comptroller, may be set the possibility of an irregularity in the return made to the office(b). Then, secondly, the parol 1824. The KING v. The INHABITANTS LE-BONE. evidence, when admitted, was sufficient to justify the Sessions in the determination which they formed. How, or for what reason, could the witness, Thomas Nash," understand what he saw to be an indenture of apprenticeship," unless it was of ST. MARY- So stated and represented to him at the time? In Rex v. St. Michael's, Bath(a), upon a question of settlement of the wife and children of a militiaman, it appeared by his examination, taken in writing under the Mutiny Act, that he went apprentice to J. M. and served five years and an half. The pauper, who was his wife, proved her marriage four years ago; that he ran away from her nine months afterwards; and that she had neither seen, heard from, nor known what was become of him, since. J. M., the supposed master, be ing dead, this was held a reasonable presumption of a binding, although some circumstantial evidence was produced by the other side to shew that J. M. never had an appren tice; "for every thing is to be presumed in favor of a settlement." (b) It is true that the authority of this case seems questioned in Rex v. Clayton-le-Moors (c), but it has never been shaken in that part with reference to which it is now used, namely, the doctrine of presumption in favor of a settlement. On these grounds it is submitted that the Sessions have properly disposed of this case, and that their order ought to be affirmed. Robinson, contrà, contended that the parol testimony was inadmissible upon every rule and principle of the law of evidence. It was mere hearsay, and amounted to nothing like the positive testimony of facts. There was nothing proved which went to shew any intention on the part either of the supposed master or apprentice to execute an indenture, or to form any such relative connection, and none of the formalities requisite to the due execution of such an instrument were shewn to have been observed. All that was proved in fact amounted to this, that the witness, Nash, had on one occasion seen a paper which he understood to be an (a) 2 Bott. 459. (b) 1 Nol. P. L. 542. (e) 5 T. R. 704. indenture. That was not evidence for any purpose, and ought not to have been admitted as such. BAYLEY, J.—I am of opinion that the parol testimony admitted in this case was properly received, and that it was sufficient to found the presumption that an indenture was executed, and that the pauper's husband served, and acquired a settlement, under it. The general rule applicable to the doctrine of presumption is, that we are to presume that which reasonably accounts for the actual existing state of things, and I think the presumption drawn by the Sessions satisfies that rule. The facts in this case, unrefuted, appear to me conclusive. The pauper's husband lived with his master in the character of an apprentice, doing the same work, and receiving the same treatment, as his other ap prentices did; and surely, after an interval of twenty years, it is not too much to presume that he really was an apprentice. With respect to proof of the destruction of the indenture, I think enough was given to let in the secondary evidence, and that the search at the Stamp-office was quite unnecessary. It must not be forgotten that the fact of the first wife of the pauper having been received into the workhouse of St. Mary-le-bone shews that that parish believed her husband to have been their parishioner, and that fact, coupled with the others I have alluded to, is, I think, decisive to shew that he had acquired a settlement as an apprentice in that parish. HOLROYD, J. Concurred (a). Order of Sessions affirmed. (a) Littledale, J. was at the Old Bailey. 1824. The KING v. The INHABITANTS of ST. MARY LE-BONE. 1824. The KING . JOSEPH SHEARD and Another. A notice of ap- THIS was an appeal against the accounts of the Overseers peal against of the Township of Soothill, in the West Riding of the counts, stating County of York, from April, 1822, to April, 1823. At the that the appel overseers ac in or charge of payments, the said ac lant" will ob- hearing of the appeal at the last Epiphany Sessions for the ject to the fol- West Riding of the County of York, the counsel for the lowing items, respondents objected to the sufficiency of the notice given by the appellants. The Sessions, however, overruled the counts, that is objection, and proceeded to hear the merits of the said apto say," and peal; and struck out certain items in the said accounts, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following then setting fying the par ticular causes insufficient. Where the attornies on both sides mission the specting items in the over The appellant is a rated inhabitant of the township of or grounds of Soothill, and having at the October Sessions, 1823, entered appeal, pursuant to 41 G. 3. an appeal against the accounts of the respondents, on the 2d c. 23. s. 4. is January, 1824, served the following notice upon the respondents:-" Gentlemen, as the solicitor of Mr. John Twigg, of the township of Soothill, in the West Riding of the county signed an ad- of York, a rated inhabitant of the said township, I do hereby day before the give you notice, that at the last General Quarter Sessions Sessions, reof the peace, held by adjournment at Leeds, in and for the said Riding, the said John Twigg entered an appeal against seers accounts, the accounts of Joseph Sheard and Thomas Tong, overseers objected to by the appellant: of the poor of the said township of Soothill, during the Held, that it following periods, that is to say, from the month of April, waiver of due 1822, to the month of April, 1823, sworn to by them before notice of ap- and allowed by two of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace peal, not having been of and for the said Riding, on the 1st day of October last, signified by the respondents or and that at the same Sessions the Court respited and adtheir attorney journed the hearing of the said appeal to the then and now Court," as re- next General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held by quired by s. 5. adjournment at Wakefield, in and for the said Riding; and was not a ❝ in open of the same statute. I do hereby give you further notice, that the said appeal will be heard and argued at the said last-mentioned Sessions, and that upon the hearing thereof, the said appellant will object to the following items: The KING v. SHEARD. £. s. d. 076 2 5 6 0 3 66 Sarah Akeroyd, 1 year, due 1st May, 1822. 1 14 6 Robert Whittaker Mary Fothergill July 8. Expenses at William Der 1 17 6 1 0 0 Aug. 7. 1 0 0 Sept. 20. 0 18 0 Sarah Clough and Rich. Seekar John Newsome 200 1 10 0 100 1 9 10 1 10 0 counts £25 3 7 And I do hereby give you further notice, that the said John Twigg will insist upon the hearing of the said appeal, that all the said items or charges ought to be struck out of the said accounts, and disallowed; and I do hereby give you notice to produce, upon the hearing of the said appeal, the said accounts so sworn to and allowed as aforesaid, and all and every the bills, accounts and vouchers, for or regarding the said several sums of money above enumerated and objected to; and also the several rates or assessments, made for the relief of the poor of the said township of Soothill, during the year 1822 and 1823. Dated the 2d day Charles Carr, of January, 1824. Solicitor for the said John Twigg, the Appellant. To the said Messrs. Joseph Sheard and Thomas Tong, and also to the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor of the said Township of Soothill." 4.0 0 |