1806. ceived him again as his apprentice, and he never slept

NG at Barmby in the Marsh aforesaid, except as above tersus stated. The court of quarter sessions upon the above the Inhabitants of BARMBY. facts reversed the said order, and at ihe request of the

respondents stated the above case for the opinion of his inajesty's court of King's Bench thereon.

LAMBE, in support of the order of sessions. This is a case of a residence with a service, the masier consented to the residence of the apprentice at Barmby in the Marsh, and took him back again. He, therea. fore contended, that the apprentice having resided under his apprenticeship 40 days and also the last night at Barmby in the Marsh, acquired a settlementia that parish, and cited Rex v. Titchfield.*

LE BLANC, J. “ If this were lo convey a settlement where the apprentice fell sick, a man might gain a seta tlement by residence in an hospital."

LAMBE, a settlement by a residence in an hospitali is prevented by act of parliament,* and according to the King v. Sutton to the apprentice would be settled where the master is settled.”

LAWRENCE, J. " The apprentice did not reside where the master lived."

Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J. “ All that we have of the residence of the master is, that the apprentice was bound to John Brealby of Idunslet in the said Westriding. At least it is pretty clear, that there is no pretence for a settlement in Burmby, for he falls sick there."

* 2 Burr, s. 511.

+ Quere, for the statute 13 Geo. 11. c. 19, s.7, applies only to the Foundling Hospital, and 9th Gico. II. c.31. s. 8. to the Magdalen Hospital. See Nolan's Pour Laws, vol. I. 297. :

$5 T. Rep. 657.

LAMBE then, stated that the apprentice had served 1806. four years in Barmby, that his master died, and that the having antecedently gained a settlement in Barmby, , versus

the Inbabitants he went and resided there, and would be bound under of BARAT other indentures.

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J.“ This is a service under other indentures, which cannot be connected with the antecedent service."* · GROSE; J. « The act of parliament is; if any person shall be bound an apprentice by indenture, and inbabit in any town or parish, such binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good settlement, though no such writing be delivered and published as aforesaid. Now nobody can call this an inhabitation, his living with a grandınother, with whom he was sent to live during a period of sickness."

ORDER of sessions QUASHED.

Original Order affirmed.

[ocr errors]

. 42.

The King against Steffe Crispe.-17th May. A conviction, stating in the evidence, that the witness, being an Conviction.

officer of excise, went and surveyed the malt house of the defen- Evidence. Malt dant, on a certain day, in his presence, which is not contradicted, is sufficient prima facie evidence, that the defendant was then a maltsster, or maker of malt within the stat, 42. Geo. III. c. 38; for, survey is a technical term for examining the stock, 8c in an entered-house ; the term for entering to discover frauds, being that of making a scarch ; and he could not survey unless it was so entered. A CONVÍCTION on the malt acts, stat. 42 Geo. III. · The Kine c. 38, was as follows:

CAIS?E. Suffolk, to wit. Be it remembered, that this 29th day


* The fact here alluded to does not appear in the case. ; NO, XXXll. N. S. 3C

vcrsus CRISPE.

1806. of May in the year of our lord, 1805, at Woodbridge, There in the county of Suffolk, Richard Powell, officer of

excise, as well for his present majesty as for himself, now here exhibiteth to us, Richard Frank, doctor of divinity, Samuel Kilderbee and George Turner, clerks, three of his said majesty's justices of the peace, in and for the said county of Suffolk, residing near to the place where the offence hereinafter mentioned was committed, an information and complaint, and thereby informeth us, the said justices, that, before and at the time of the committing of the offence hereafter mentioned, one Steffe Crispe was a maltster and maker of malt, to wit, at Wangford in the said county of Suffolk, and, so being there such maltster and maker of malt, be the said Steffe Crispe, within three months now last past, that is to say, on the 12th day of May now last past, at Ilangford aforesaid, in the said county of Suffolk, did wet, water, and sprinkle, and cause to be wetted, watered, and sprinkled, certain corn and grain of him the said Steffe Crispe, then and there making into malt, in a certain state and stage of operation, that is to say, while the said corn and grain so making into malt as aforesaid was a floor, after the said corn and grain had been emptied, thrown, and taken from and out of the eistern of him, the said Steffe Crispe, used by him for steeping the said corn and grain, and before the end and expiration of twelve days from the time when the said corn and grain had been so as aforesaid emptied, thrown, and taken from and out of "the said cistern, contrary to the form of the statute

in that case made and provided, whereby and by force of the statute in that case made and provided, he the said Steffe Crispe hath forfeited the sum of 2001. : and thereupon the said Richard Powell who prosecu. teth as aforesaid, prayeth the judgment of us the said -justices in the premises, and that the said Steffe Crispe may be summoned to answer the premises, and to

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

wake defence thereto before us the said, justices, and that he the said Richard Powell may bave one moiety of the said penalty and forfeiture. And, thereupon, afterwards to wit on the 4th day of June, at Woodbridge, in the said county of Suffolk; the said Steffa Crispe, having been previously duly summoned, in pursuance of our syminons in this behalf issued, to appear before us the said justices, to make his defence to the said information, now here appears before us the said justices in his proper person ; and having beard the said information read to him, he is asked by us, the said justices, if he can say any thing for himself, why he should not be convicted of the premises charged upon him in and by the said information, and, thereupon, he the said Steffe Crispe denieth the matters contained in the said information, and saith that he is not guilty thereof as is therein alledgedor Whereupon we the said justices do now at the requesi of the said informer, proceed to examine into the truth of the matters' contained in the said information, and; thereupon, on the day and year last. aforesaid, at Woodbridge aforesaid, in the said county of Suffolk, John Freeman, officer of excise, and W. Robinson, officer of excise, twoi credible witnesses on the part of the said informer, now here come before us the said jaslices, and being duly sworn, (we the said justices having competent power and authority to administer to them respectively an oath in this behalf,) depose and say in the premises as follows, and first the said John Freeman on his oath for himself, saith, that he is an officer of excise, that the said Steffe Crispe is a maltster at Wangford, in this county,that he with the said W. Robinson surveyed the malthouse of the defendant at Wangford aforesaid, on the said 12th of May, and found a floor of malt, in operation, very wet; that the said floor of inalt had been only four days out of the cistern, that the said floor had been watered since it was thrown from the cistern. And the


versus CRISPS.

'said W. Robinson, on his oath' aforesaid, for himself The Kino saith, that he surveyed the said malihouse with the

Jast witness, on the said 12th of May, and he is sure that the said floor of malt has been watered since it was thrown from the cistern; that it had been out of the cistern onlyfour days, on the said 12th day of May. And the said Steffe Crispe is no where again called upon by us the said justices for his further defence in the premises; but no other evidence is now here produced to us the said justices, whereupon, all and singular the premises being seen and mature deliberation being thereupon had, it manifestly appears to us, the said justices, that the said Stef'e Crispe is guilty of the premises charged upon him, in, and by the said information in manner and form as is therein alledged. It is thereupon adjudged by us the said justices, that the said Sieffe Crispe be convicted; and he is hereby convicted of the said offences charged upon him as aforesaid, according to the form of the statute in that case made and provided, and we do award and adjudge that the said Steffe Crispe hath, for his said offence, forfeited the sum of 2001. but we do hereby' mitigate the same to the sum of 521. 2s. the said sum of 52l. 2$, to go and be applied as the law directa. In witness whereof, we the said justices to this record of conviction have set our hands and seals wat Woodbridge, aforesaid, in the said county of Suffolk, this 4th day, of, June, in the year of our Lord, 1805.*. , .7745 ; ; w.

This conviction being removed into this court by certiorari, and a rule being obtained 'to shew cause why the saine should not be quashed, several objections were taken to it, as follows:

T 0 : * So many objections were taken to this. conviction in point of form, that I have not ventured to abridge it ; nor could į very easily condense the objections into a narrower com. pass.

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »