master, without leave or consent contrary to the cove- i8o<;. tiant of his indenture, and the statute in such case marie The Kino and provided, and whereas upon examination thereof, ve,"u and upon hearing the allegations of both parties, they having come before us for that purpose, and upon due consideration had thereof, it manifestly appears unto us, that the said Sumuel GUI is guilty of the premises so charged against him as aforesaid, and we do therefore hereby command you the said constable to convey the said Sumuel Gill to the said house of correction, and to deliver him to the said keeper thereof, together with this warrant, and we do hereby command you the said keeper of the said house of correction, to receive the said Samuel GUI into your custody, therein there to remain and be corrected and held to hard labour for the space of one month. Given under our hands and seals the 23d day of April in the year of onrlord 180G.

The master not appearing, and no counsel appearing for the justices, Esimnasse prayed that the apprentice Gill might be discharged and might also be discharged from his indentures, and cited ex parte Alary Ann Dnvi* where upon a habeas corpus to bring up the apprentice to be discharged, she being then of age, the court held, that an apprentice could pot be bound to serve longer than when he becomes af age, unless he then affirms the covenant

But by the Court, "We cannot now take lhes.3 facts into our consideration, There is no defect in the commitment, as it is returned to us, apparent upon the face of it. If upon hearing the case the magistrates did wrong in, point of fact, the party must appeal or bring his action. The master is not before us, and probably this is all an after thought, and was not made an

* 5 Term Rep. 715.

objection, by way of defence, before the magistrates. Upon a habeas corpus and return we can only look to the defects of the commitment apparent upon, the face of it."

Esimnasse pressed the court very much with the hardship and inconvenience of the case, and strongly relied upon the case of cx parte Mary Ann Davis.*

But by the Court. "We can only look to the apparent defects of the commitment."

Lawrence, J. "I do not understand this case of Mary Da vis to be law as it is reported. I do not know of a habeas corpus to discharge an apprentice from indentures. How can this court undertake to. discharge men from their covenants upon a habeas corpus. There must be a mistake in it."

13urrovgh, amicus curia:, said that the girl in that case was in the care of some person,f and the habeas, corpus was to bring her up and she was discharged.

Rule Discharged, and the apprentice Gill remauded.

* 5 TermBep. 715.

+ It might be, as I should think, that the master detained her, and her friends might then apply for a habtas corpus, against the master to bring her up to be discharged put of his custody or personal controul, which would be, ir( effect, to discharge her from her indentures, and to enable her to avoid them by absenting herself from his service.—Editor.


The Kino versus

[ocr errors]

The Kino against the Inhabitants of Kickinchall.

—April 27th. ■

A Creemeick pensioner placed out to hoard by his parish, at 2s. til. Pauper. Settle. « Keek paid by them to an inhabitant of another parish for his Se*~ ioard, ijc., he worlunf; as a servant for him, does not acquire a settlement by such residence and service.

rllS was a case from the sessions in which the pa- The htwo . . , , the Inhabitant*

rish of Ricktng/tall Inferior had appealed to the gfKicm*u' sessions, and the parish of Ricki/ighali Superior were 1 respondents below; upon an order of two justices for the removal of one Hairy Saunders, his wife and child, from the parish of Rickinghnll Superior to the parish, of Rickinghall Inferior in the county of Suffolk.

The pauper Henry Sawders,a Greenwich pensioner, settled in the parish of Ret/grave, came here in the year 1801, disabled by the loss of a leg. Qu the 5th of March in that year, the parish officers of Redgrave, agreed verbally with Robert Crowe of Rickinghall Inferior, lime burner, that Henry Saunders should five with him till the 8th of Nqvcmbcr following, and do for it tin whatever he set him about. The parish of Redgrave agreed to paj' Crowe, two shillings and six pence per wc(.-k,aiid Crowe to find board, lodging, and washing, for Saunders tinder these terms. Saunders lived with Crowe till Christinas following, when Crowe went with Saunders to the parish officers of Redgrave, and refused to keep him any longer, unless they would increase his allowance. They consented to increase it to four shillings per week, and Crowe thereupon agreed to take Saunders again till the Easter following; Saunders returned and staid accordingly; in the same manner, at Easter, the parish of Redgrave refused to continue Saunders upon an allowance, and hereupon Croat sent him home to Redgrave, whence he returned to Crowe, and without any new express agreement continued to live with him in the same manner as before, until October the 15th, 1804, when he oeased tcj i«i6. live with' Croat on account of his marrying. During TheKmo tne lime Saunders lived under the first agreement term, with the officers of Redgrave, he attempted to absent

the Inhabitants . . ... _ , ■ ,. , . r% . tj

•fR«6«i.Nc. himselt from Crowe, to make holiday, but Crowe told Ball. Yi\m he was his servant by the agreement with the parish, and that he could not go without his leave, which however he did. He went twice in the year to London to get his pension from Greenwich Hospital, and was absent two or three weeks at a time; he used to tell Crowe when he was going, but he did not ask leave nor did Crowe refuse ; during the whole time Saunders lived with Crowe he was eir ployed by him in chopping chalk, he did no work for any other person, he slept in the parish of Rickinghall Inferior, and received now and then six pence from Crowe, when he did little jobs for him on Sundays, and has done nothing since to gain a settlement. While Saunders was with Crowe, after the parish officers of Redgrave had refused to continue the allowance, he received from them, on his application for relief, at one time, half a guinea, and, at another, half a crown, and once the parish officers of Redgrave, took for themselves his pension from Greenwich Hospital. The court confirmed the order, and also granted the common costs of 40s. to the respondent considering the statute of the 8th and 9th of king William III. imperative on them in that respect.

W. Frebb, for the respondents, was shortly heard in order to establish a hiring and contract between the pauper and Crowe as master and servant.

But by the Court, it was held clearly not a contract of hiring and service, but only to board and provide for the pauper as one of the poor of the parish of Rtdgrave, and that the contract was not with the pauper but with the parish.

Frere then moved the question of the costs. But 1806. the court would uot decide upon it. The Kjxo


Aldbmon, was counsel for the defendants. tb« inhabitant*

Order of Sessions and original order Quashed. u*Ll*

The Kino against the Inhabitants of Barmby.— lOr/i May.

/There a pauper, apprenticed to '** matter of a small trading vessel Pauper Ap

• prentice, £»•<

had slept more thanforty nigkti atS., but slept the last night of tlcment bv ap

his service atB., and had tlept there previously, more thanforty prenticeship.

...... Stat. 3 and 4

nights, at hts grandmother s, in consequence of being ill of a fever, \v. ami M.

and was received back by his master s held, that he was not settled °- **> *'8in B., the residence, except for the last night, being only in consequence of sickness.

^pWO justices by their order, removed a pauper John T'^,^0

Martindale, Mary his wife, and John and George ihelnhjbitaou their sons, from the township of Barmby in the Marsh, ai 1J*RM,V* in the east-riding of the county of York, to the township pf Selby in the west-riding of the said county. The pari sh of Selby appealed to the quarter sessions, and the case was as follows:

John Martindale, the pauper, was bound apprentice by indenture dated the 1st day of April, 1794, for four years to John Brealby of Humlet in the said westriding, who was the master of a small vessel trading on the river Ouse. The pauper slept more than forty nights, during such apprenticeship at Selby aforesaid, at different times, but he slept the last night thereof, at Barmby in the Marsh aforesaid, at his the said John Martindale'* grandmother's, at which last mentioned place he had,before,slept more than forty nights in consequence of his being ill of a fever. He so went there with the consent of his said master who re

« ForrigeFortsett »