It did not appear that the trustees were privy to this engagement:

Held, that the indenture did not require to be stamped, because either the agreement by the father to provide clothes was not a thing secured to be given to or for the benefit of the master within the 55 G. 3. c. 184. schedule, part 1. tit. Apprenticeship, or, assuming that it was, then it was void as being a fraud on the trustees, who had bound out the apprentice on the faith that the master was to provide clothes. The King v. The Inhabitants of Aylesbury, E. Page 569

2. W. 4. 6. G. S. was bound apprentice to a cork-cutter in parish B., to serve him for seven years. After serving for seven weeks in that parish, the apprentice having a weakness in his eyes, his master told him to go back to his father, and it was afterwards agreed that the master should give the pauper two gross of corks per week, of the value of 2s., to maintain him; he went and lived with his father in parish K. for two years, during which time he received the corks from his master and sold them, and slept more than forty nights at his father's house in K., but did no work for his master. At the expiration of two years, in consequence of the master giving him bad corks, he was taken back to the master in B. with whom he lived ten days, and during that time he went out hawking corks for sale for his master. He then went home again, his master agreeing to let him have a gross of the best corks per week, which he did, and the apprentice disposed of them as before, doing no work for the master, and residing in K. with his father till his indentures were discharged by an order of two justices: Held, that the apprentice being maintained by his master in

K., in pursuance of the indenture, resided there as an apprentice and gained a settlement. The King v. The Inhabitants of Banbury, T. 2 W. 4.

Page 706 7. Lands were devised for the relief of the poor of H.; one half of the revenue to be employed for the relief of widows, the other half towards binding out apprentices. The rents were received by the churchwardens, and not mixed with the poor's rates, but kept in a distinct account. A parishioner of H., not receiving parish relief, applied to the churchwardens to provide him with means of apprenticing his son. The son was apprenticed and the churchwar dens paid the premium, costs of indenture, and expense of clothing the apprentice out of the charity fund: Held, that this was not an indenture by which an expense was incurred by public parochial funds, within 56 G.3. c. 139. s.ll. and therefore not void for want of the approval of two justices according to that statute.

And in a similar case, where lands were devised to the churchwardens and overseers of L. and their successors, upon trust, to apply the rents towards educating twenty poor children, and a part thereof yearly towards apprenticing eight of such children, to be chosen out and allowed by the said churchwardens and overseers and the principal inhabitants: Held, that this also was not a public parochial fund within the meaning of the act. The King v. The Inhabitants of Halesworth.

717

special authority to assign this or any apprentice, but he had occasionally made such assignments during Lord C.'s absence, and been allowed the expences in his account. The assignment in other respects was regular. The steward paid the new master 57. which was allowed in his account by Lord C., as usual: Held, (assuming that a master can delegate power of assigning an apprentice, as to which quære,) that the master must at all events give his express authority to the assignment; that in this case there was no sufficient authority; and, consequently, that no settlement was gained by service under the assignment.

Quære, whether a parish apprentice can be bound to a person living abroad? The King v. The Inhabitants of Spreyton, T. 2 W.4. Page 819

SETTLEMENT - by estate.

1. A father in consideration of natural love and affection, and of 241. which he owed his son, made over to him premises in the parish of S. by verbal agreement only, and the son received the rents for three years, residing in S.: Held, that the son was a purchaser for less than 30l. within the 9 G. 1. c. 7. s. 5., and gained no settlement. The King v. The Inhabitants of Piddlehinton, E. 2 W. 4.

to give it up to his son and heir, if he would pay off 157. which he, A., had borrowed on the estate, and would permit A. and his wife to reside on it rent free during their lives. The son paid off the 15., and was admitted to the copyhold estate upon the surrender of his father. The admittance recited the verbal agreement between A. and his son, and the payment of the 15l. A. and his wife continued afterwards to reside on the estate with their son: Held, that from the terms of the conveyance, and the state of the family, natural love and affection must be taken to have formed an ingredient in the consideration, and, therefore, this was not the purchase of an estate or interest whereof the consideration did not amount to 30l. within the 9G. 1. c. 7. s. 5. The King v. The Inhabitants of Hatfield Broad Oak, E. 2 W. 4. Page 566 4. A real estate was devised to C.B., who, on the death of the testator, was sixteen years old. Her father, considering himself her guardian, resided with her on the estate: Held, that as the estate came to the daughter by devise, and not by descent, and she was above fourteen years of age, the father was not a guardian in socage, but natural guardian only; and that having, as such, no interest in the land, he gained no settlement by residing on it. The King v. The Inhabitants of Sherrington, T. 714 A. enclosed an acre of land, and built a house upon it, for which the parish gave him materials. Fourteen years after he gave by parol part of the land so enclosed to B., who built a cottage on it, and afterwards enclosed a further portion of the common,

5.

2 W. 4.

and

and B. occupied the whole premises for about sixteen years. The copyholders, who were accustomed every seven years to break down the fences of encroachments on the common, twice broke down the fences between the common and the new land thus enclosed by B., the fence between the new and old enclosure having been previously removed, and passed over that part of the land which had been newly enclosed by B.: Held, that B. gained a settlement by estate. The King v. The Inhabitants of Pensax, T. 2W.4. Page 815 6. Appellants against an order of removal proved that J.J., the father of the pauper's wife, being seised in fee of land, and having several children, it was in his lifetime agreed between them, that part of the land should be allotted to each child, in pursuance of which agreement, on the mar riage of the pauper in 1808, a portion of the land was allotted to him, upon which he built a house, and resided in it for sixteen years, and then sold the whole for 60l. to a party who held it ever since. The respondents then produced a conveyance to the pauper of the land in question in 1815 by S. J., the eldest son and heir at law of J. J. It recited that the pauper had agreed to purchase the above parcel of land of S. J., and had paid him two guineas for the same, but no conveyance thereof had yet been made; and then expressed, that in consideration of that sum S. J. bargained and sold, &c.: Held, that the appellants were not estopped by the recital of this deed from giving parol evidence that the consideration stated in the deed was never paid or intended to be paid, and that the deed was

made for the purpose of confirming the pauper's title to the land allotted to him in virtue of the above parol agreement. The King v. The Inhabitants of Cheadle, T. 2 W.4. Page 833

SETTLEMENT-- by Hiring and Service.

1. A hired servant is settled in that parish in which he last completes a forty days' residence, although he performs no service there for his master. The King v. The Inhabitants of Dremerchion, E. 2 W.4.

2.

420

A., a certificated man, was hired by a farmer residing in parish B. as his shepherd to go into his ser vice at midsummer. It was agreed between them, that A. should have a cottage in B. rent free, and the going of 105 sheep with his master's flock. The term "going" in the county where the contract was made meant that the sheep should be pasture fed, and the feeding on pasture in B. was worth 10. per annum. At the same midsummer A. hired C. to serve him for a year as shepherd's page, and he did so serve in parish B. till the following midsummer: Held, upon a special case stating these facts as found by the sessions, that C. gained a settlement by hiring and service with A., because the latter never resided in parish B. by virtue of the certificate; for having come there to settle on a tenement of 101. per annum, he was irremovable as soon as he came into the parish, although he could not gain any settlement there until he resided forty days. The King v. The Inhabi tants of Nacton, E. 2 W. 4. 543 3.. To gain a settlement by hiring and service, the whole forty days' residence need not be within the compass of a year from the time

of

of the yearly hiring. A servant was hired for a year on the 17th of April 1825, and served in parish A. till the 11th of April 1826, when he made a fresh agreement with his master as a weekly servant, and continued to serve under that agreement for upwards of two months. He resided in parish A. from the 17th of April to the 3d of May 1825, when he accompanied his master to and resided in another parish till the 6th of April 1826. He then returned 2. with his master to parish A. and resided there during the remainder of his service, viz. under the first agreement from the 6th to the 11th of April, and under the second for two months: Held that he gained a settlement in A. The King v. The Inhabitants of Child Okeford, T. 2 W. 4.

Page 809 4. A. hired himself for a year, but stated to his master, at the time of the hiring, that he had been called upon to serve in the local militia in the course of the preceding year, and that he expected to be called out again in the May following; and it was agreed between them that the master should deduct out of his wages 1s. a day for as many days as he should be absent on service in the militia. A. having served under that contract for a

10. shall be deemed sufficient the purpose of gaining a settlement under the recited act 6 G. 4. c.57. is retrospective, and therefore where a pauper in 1829 hired a house at a yearly rent exceeding 10., occupied it for more than a year, and paid not a whole year's rent, but above 10l. it was held that he thereby gained a settlement. The King v. The Inhabitants of Dursley, E. 2 W. 4. Page 465 A., a certificated man, was hired by a farmer residing in parish B. as his shepherd to go into his service at midsummer. It was agreed between them, that A. should have a cottage in B. rent free, and the feeding on pasture in B. was worth 10l. per annum. the same midsummer, A. hired C. to serve him for a year as shepherd's page, and he did so serve in parish B. till the following midsummer: Held, upon a special case stating these facts as found by sessions, first, that it was to be inferred from the case, that the feeding of the cattle was to be in parish B., and therefore that there was a taking of a tenement of 107. per annum in that parish by A. The King v. The Inhabitants of Nacton, E. 2 W. 4.

SHERIFF.

REPLEVIN, 1.

At

543

SETTLEMENT—by renting a
Tenement.

1. The second section of the 1 W. 4. c. 18. by which it is provided, that where the yearly rent shall exceed 10. payment to the amount of

seem

seem fit. The justices of Middlesex have jurisdiction to award compensation to the sheriff of Middlesex under this clause, the Judges of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas being judges of assize for that county. The King v. The Justices of Middlesex, H. 2 W. 4. Page 100 2. A sheriff, to whom a bailable

latitat not containing a non-omittas clause was directed, is not bound, for the purpose of arresting the party named in it to enter a franchise, within which the lord has the return and execution of writs. Adams v. Osbaldeston, Esq. E. 2 W. 4.

SPECIAL JURY.

See ARBITRAMENT, 2.

SPIRITS.

489

The statute 6 G. 4. c. 80. s. 124. enacts, that no dealer in British spirits shall sell, send out, &c. any plain British spirits exceeding the strength of twenty-five above proof, or any compounded spirits (except shrub) of seventeen under proof, on pain of forfeiting such spirits Held, that this section does not apply to a distiller or rectifier, and, therefore, that where a rectifier had sold and sent out plain British spirits of the strength of twenty-seven and a half, such contract of sale was not illegal, nor were the spirits prohibited goods, and the seller might recover the price.

By sections 115. and 117. it is enacted, that no spirits shall be sent out of the stock of any distiller, rectifier, &c. without a permit first granted and signed by the proper officer of excise, truly specifying the strength of such spirits, and by

Section 119. if any permit granted for spirits shall not be sent

and delivered with such spirits to the buyer, such spirits shall, if not seized in the transit for want of a lawful permit, be forfeited to the buyer, and the seller shall be rendered incapable of recovering the same, or the price thereof, and shall incur other penalties:

Held, that this latter section applied to cases only, where the permit granted by the officers of excise has not been delivered with the goods to the buyer, and not to a case where the permit, though irregular, was delivered to him; and, therefore, where a rectifier of spirits had sent to the buyer spirits of the strength of twentyseven and a half above proof, with a permit in which they were described as of seventeen below proof, it was held that, although the irregularity was the seller's own fault, and was a violation of the law by him, it still did not preclude him from suing for the price, the contract of sale being legal. Wetherell v. Jones, H. 2 W. 4. Page 221

STALLAGE. See ASSUMPSIT, 4.

STAMP.

1. By an agreement of demise, the land was to be farmed according to covenants contained in an expired lease. The expired lease being produced in an action brought for not farming the land according to those covenants; it was held, that it was not a schedule catalogue or inventory containing the conditions or regulations for the management of a farm within the statute 35 G. 3. c. 184. tit. Sched. pt. 1., and therefore did not require a stamp of 25s. Strutt v. Robinson, E. 2 W.4. 395 2. A pau