gained no settlement by service under the indentures, because the second wife, and consequently her apprentice, resided under her certificate. (1) A widow resided under a certificate granted to her husband, in which he alone was named. Her son born under the certificate continued to live with his mother, after his father's death, in the certificated parish, but car-. ried on trade upon his own account. A servant hired by him for his business does not acquire a settlement, for the son not being emancipated, continues part of his mother's family; and as she is protected by the certificate, so is the son as part of her family. (2) certificate. But the son must be expressly named in the certificate. Son named in A certificate to the township of B. engaged to receive and provide for T. C., and Jane, his wife, and their child or children, born or to be born. His son R. C. was born when this certificate was granted and delivered; R. C. afterwards. married, and while residing with his family in B., the certified parish, apart from his father, took H. as an apprentice, who served out his time in B., and was held to have thereby gained a settlement there. For nothing but the express mentioning the person by name will have the same effect as naming him: and the current of all the authorities decides, that if a person not named in the certificate, who only comes within the scope of it, as being the child of a person named, abandons the roof of his parents, and becomes himself the parent-stock of another family, such person is not only capable of gaining a settlement himself, but also of being the means of others gaining a settlement by service with him; although his father remains protected by the certificate. (3) (1) Rex v. Hampton, ante, 174. (7). (2) Rex v. Sowerby, 2 East, 276. ante, Vol. I.; and see the opinion of Lawrence J., Rex v. Alfreton, 7 Term Rep. 471. and Rex v. Thwaites, infra, (3). (3) Rex v. Thwaites, 1 M. & S. 669. certificate man master certi ficated assigns him to an inhabitant of that parish. Or if serving a An apprentice who serves a certificated master under by assignment. an assignment does not thereby acquire a settlement, any more than if he had been bound originally to him. (1) Or if original And if originally bound to a certificated man, he does not acquire one by serving part of his apprenticeship, under a regular assignment, to an uncertificated inhabitant of the parish. (2) For the 12 Anne, stat. 1. c. 18. having expressly provided that persons bound apprentices to certificated men should not, by virtue of such apprenticeship, indenture, or binding, gain a settlement in such parish, it is necessary that the binding should be such as would be capable of conferring a settlement by service under the original master in that place, otherwise no settlement can be gained there by virtue thereof. For the legislature intended, that no act whatever of this sort by a certificated man should help to bind the parish. (3) Neither can one, originally bound into a certificated parish, gain a settlement by subsequent residence there, while his master resides in a third parish, provided the certificate is not abandoned. (4) Wherever master can may. But wherever the master is not protected in his resigain settlement dence by the certificate, his apprentice or servant may his apprentice acquire settlements by service in their respective capacities. An apprentice is, therefore, settled by residence in a parish to which the certificate does not extend (5), or by serving an uncertificated person residing in such parish under an assignment. (6) So he may acquire one in the certificated parish where the master has received a certificate, but not delivered it, if he reside forty days previous to the delivery (7); for the master might have gained one during that period. (8) But if his master receives and delivers a (1) Romsey v. St. Michael, ante, 177. (7). (4) Rex v. Spotland, Burr. S. C. 527. (5) Rex v. Bishopside, Burr. S. C. 581. Rex v. Spotland, supra. (6) Rex v. Petham, Burr. S. C. 154. (7) Rex v. Wensley, 5 Term Rep. 154. ante, 173. (4). (8) Rex v. Clifsthydon, Burr. S. C. 151. certificate before the service of forty days is complete, the apprentice cannot acquire a settlement afterwards, for he is under an absolute disability of gaining one, unless he is bound, and serve forty days to a man who did not come into or reside, during that time, in the parish by means or licence of a certificate. (1) But so soon as the certificate is discharged, either as to the master (2), or specially as to the apprentice, he may acquire a settlement in the same manner as any other person might. (3) PART II. SECT. V. Of the Continuance and Determination of a Certificate. A CERTIFICATE may be discharged altogether as to the Certificate entire family, or continued as to part, and determined as discharged in part. to the remainder. (4) This may be effected in various ways. How discharged. 1st, By a removal of the pauper by the certificated pa- 1st. By an orrish, to that which granted the certificate (5), or by a third der of removal. parish, either removing him thither (6), or to that to which (1) St. Cuthbert's v. Westbury, Burr. S. C. 470. (2) Rex v. Birdham, Cald. 500. Rex v. St. Peter's in Derby, 1 Term Rep. 218., when the certificate was discharged by the master's obtaining one to another parish. (3) Rex v. Weddington, Burr. S. C. 766. Here the indentures were discharged, and the apprentice went and served another master under other indentures in a third parish for four years, after which he served two years under indentures in the certificated parish, and was also hired for and served a year there. See ante, 177. (4), (5). (4) Rex v. Heath, 5 Term Rep. 583. Rex v. Keel, and several cases there cited, post, 184. (5) Rex v. Sudbury, Burr. S. C. 373. (6) Rex v. Birdham, Cald. 500. 2. A new certificate. 3. Abandonment. Abandonment defined. the certificate was given (1), if there is no appeal against the order. 2d, By granting a new certificate to another parish. (2) 3d, By the pauper's voluntary deserting the certificate by removing from the parish to which it was granted, and taking up his residence either in the certifying parish, or elsewhere, without an intention to return thither. This principle is stated so clearly by Lord Kenyon C.J. as to reduce the point to a mere question of fact, to be decided by the justices upon proof of the party's intention. In 1754, the pauper's father went to reside in St. Michael's, under a certificate, and continued there until 1757, when he returned to the certifying parish with his family, where the pauper was born. In two years he returned with his family to St. Michael's, and after residing there eight years, went back with them to the certifying parish. Three years afterwards he returned again to St. Michael's, where the pauper was bound apprentice to him, and having dwelt there with his family six years, he resided for another year in different parishes, and then went back with his family to St. Michael's, where the pauper resided under his indentures for a year. Lord Kenyon C. J. "It was at length settled in Rex v. Newington (3), that a voluntary removal from the certified parish (not indeed for a temporary purpose only, but where, as Lord Mansfield said, the residence there is permanently at an end,') will put an end to the certificate. A mere temporary removal I understand to be, where the person goes from the certificated parish, to make a visit (1) Rex v. Ealing, Cald. 472. (2) Per Lord Mansfield, Rex v. Birdham, Cald. 500. Rex v. St. Peter's in Derby, 1 Term Rep. 218. S.P. (3) Post, 184. (3). elsewhere, or on occasional business, leaving his family behind him in that parish, as being the place of his domicile. (1) But in this case, the pauper's father went, taking all his family with him, to the certificating parish, where he took a house, and resided for two years; he afterwards went back to the certificated parish, and again returned to the parish by which the certificate was granted, where he continued (1) T.M. went, in 1736, to reside in All Saints under a certificate from Darlington. While he resided there, his son Thomas was born, who, after having been hired and served for a year in a third parish, returned to All Saints, where he married, and lived until his death. His son the pauper, was born there, who, when of the age of 14, hired himself to live with B. in All Saints for three years. The grandfather T. M. returned to Darlington with his wife some time before the pauper's service with B., leaving his son Thomas with his family, among whom was the pauper, behind him, and both T. M. and his wife died at Darlington. Lord Kenyon C. J. "In this case, two questions are made, 1st, whether, by the grandfather's return to Darlington, there was an end of the certificate? I am strongly inclined to think it was not an abandonment. If all the family had indeed been removed back, that would have been an abandonment; but as his son was left behind, it was a sort of pledge, that the certificate was not intended to be abandoned. It is not necessary, however, to determine upon that point, because, on the other question, I am prepared to give a decisive opinion." But Mr. J. Buller thought, "that the certificate was at an end by the grandfather's return; it was originally granted to him. The man to whom the certificate was granted, is the person whom the legislature had in view; and being granted to him according to the statute, it rightly includes his family; but his family are" those only who live with him." And as it happens in the course of time, that some of the children separate from the father, if the father himself return to the parish granting the certificate, I think that the certificate is at an end as to all of them." Rex v. Darlington, 4 Term Rep. 797. In this case the son had ceased to be part of his father's family, having married and become the head of a distinct one. He had also gained a settlement in a third parish by hiring and service. A certificate to K. was granted to a father who died there, after which his son, who was named in the certificate, continued to reside in K. But his daughter, when seven years old, returned to the certifying parish, where she dwelt for eleven years, the last three or four of which were passed in service, she twice went back to her brother at K. The certificate was held not to be abandoned as to her. Lord Mansfield being at first of opinion that it was. Rex v. Keel, post, 185. In Rex v. Heath, 5 Term Rep. 583., Lord Kenyon intimates that "Lord Mansfield's first thoughts were best." See post, 184. (3). |