1806. the ki

versies FENWICK.

master, without leave or consent contrary to the cove. pant of his indenture, and the stalute in such case made and provided, and whereas upon examination thereof, and upon hearing the allegations of both parties, they having come before us for that purpose, and upon due consideration had thereof, iç manifestly appears unto us, that the said Sumuel Gill 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 Samuel 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 Gill 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 our lord 1806.

The master not appearing, and no counsel appearing for the justices, ESPINASSE prayed that the apprentice Gill might be discharged and might also be discharged from his indentures, and cited ex parte Mary Anil Dari, * 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 not be bound to serve longer than when he beconies of age, unless he then affirms the covenant.

But by the COURT, “We cannot now take these 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 inust appeal or bring his action. The inaster is not before us, and probably this is all an after thought, and was not inade an

* 5 Term Rep. 715.


1806. objection, by way of defence, before the magistrates. The King Upon a nuveas cu pas a

Upon a habeas corpus and return we can only look

to the defects of the commitment apparent upon the FENWICK.

face of it.”

ESPINASSE pressed the court very much with the hardship and inconvenience of the case, and strongly relied upon the case of ex parte Mary Ann Duris.*

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 Davis 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 kabeas corpus. There must be a mistake in it.”

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


apprentice Gill remanded.

* 5 Term Rep. 715.

+ It might be, as I should think, that the master de. tained her, and her friends might then apply for a habeas çarpus, against the master to bring her up to be discharged out of his custody or personal controul, which would be, in effect, to discharge her from her indentures, and to enable her to avoid them by absenting herself from his service.-Editor.

The King against the INHABITANTS of RICKINGHALL. 1806.

-- April 27th. A Greenwich pensioner placed out to board by his parish, at 28. 8d. Pauper. Settle, a treek paid by them to an inhabitant of another parish for his ment by Ser

vice. voard, 8c., he working as a servant for him, does not acquire a settlement by such residence and service, THIS was a case from the sessions in which the pa- The King

the Inhabitants rish of Rickinghall Inferior had appealed to the of Rocking; sessions, and the parish of Rickinghall Superior were

WALL respondents below; upon an order of two justices for the removal of one Henry Saunders, his wife and child, from the parish of Rickinghall Superior to the parish of Rickinghall Inferior in the county of Suffolk. .

The pauper Henry Saunders, ą Greenwich pensioner, settled in the parish of Redgrave, came here in the year 1801, disabled by the loss of a leg. On the 5th of March in that year, the parish officers of Redgrare, agreed verbally with Robert Crowe of Rickinghall Inferior, lime burner, that Henry Saunders should live with him till the sth of November following, and do for hiin whatever he set him aboạt. The parish of Redgrave agreed to pay Crowe, two shillings and six pence per week, and Crowe to find board, lodging, and washing, for Saunders under these terins. 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 Crowe 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, 1904, when he ceased to



1896. live with Crowe on account of his marrying. During

the time that Saunders lived under the first agreement ersus with the officers of Redgrave, he attempted to absent the Lukabitants of Rickinge himself from Crowe, to make holiday, but Crowe told

him he was bis 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 er 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 Crowl, 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 bis 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 oth of king William III. imperative on them in that re: spect.

W. FRERE, for the respondents, was shortly heard in order to establish a biring 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 Redgrave, and that the contract was not with the payper but with the parish.

[ocr errors]

Frere then moved the question of the costs. But' 1806. the court would not decide upon it.

The King ALDERSON, was counsel for the defendants.

the Inhabitants

of RICKING Order of sessions and original order quashed,

ver sus


The King against the INHABITANTS of BARMBY.

10th May.

Where a pauper, apprenticed to the master of a small trading vessel Pauper Apo,

prentice. Set had slept more than forty nights at S., but slept the last night of ilement by aphis service at B., and had slept there previously, more than forty prenticeship:

• Stat. 3 and 4 nights, at his grandmother's, in consequence of being ill of a fever, W. and M. and was received back by his master ; held, that he was not settled c. 11, s. 8. in B., the residence, except for the last night, being only in consequence of sickness.




TWO justices by their order, removed a pauper John The

Martindale, Mary his wife, and John and George theInhabitants their sons, from the township of Barmby in the Marsh, of in the east-riding of the county of York, to the town. ship of 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 Hunslet 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 bis the said

John Martindale's 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 »