1834. SADLER against ΝΙΧΟΝ. law where parties have become jointly liable in an insulated transaction, and not where there is a partner. ship; but it can make no difference whether the parties were joint contractors in the particular transaction only, or in several others. The principle on which the plaintiff is entitled to recover is, that he has been compelled to pay out of his own funds money which the defendant was jointly liable to pay. [Patteson J. In Helme v. Smith (a), a part-owner of a ship, who, as ship's husband, had incurred the expense of outfit, sued another part-owner for his share of the expense; it was answered that no action lay, inasmuch as the plaintiff and defendant appeared to be partners; and Tindal C. J. there said, "If, indeed, the plaintiff and defendant were partners, there is an end of the question; but part owners of a ship are not necessarily partners."] In that case, the part-owner had paid the money voluntarily and not by compulsion. Cur. adv. vult. Lord DENMAN C. J. now delivered judgment, and said, the Court were of opinion that there was no ground for the distinction taken on the part of the plaintiff; and, therefore, there would be no rule. Rule refused. (a) 7 Bing, 709. 1834. Jan. 18th. The KING against The Inhabitants of Sr. Saturday, ON appeal against an order of two justices, whereby John Ivey was removed from the parish of St. Simon and St. Jude, in the city and county of the city of Norwich, to the In-parish of St. Cuthbert, in the city of Wells, in the county of Somerset: the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: of The respondents sought to establish the settlement the pauper in the appellant parish, as derived from his father, John Ivey, who had been placed out as an apprentice by the parish officers of Ditcheat. By the indenture (bearing date the 23d of August 1774) the churchwardens and overseers of Ditcheat, with the assent of two justices, whose names were subscribed to the indenture, put and placed John Ivey, about eight years of age, a poor child of the said parish, apprentice to Mr. Edward Powell, for and in respect of Mr. William Wilmot, his estate, with him to dwell and serve from the date of the indenture until he should accomplish his full age of twenty-four years; there was a covenant by Powell to teach Ivey the art and business of husbandry, and the indenture appeared to be executed by one churchwarden and one overseer, and by Wilmot. Powell was a farmer, and the tenant of farm at Ditcheat, the property of Wilmot, who was a stocking-maker residing at Wraxhall, in Ditcheat, but who afterwards lived in the appellant parish, where a John denture in J. E. by in 1774, was put apprentice to P. for and in respect of W.'s estate; and there was a covenant by P. to teach J. E. the business of husbandry. The indenture by the parish officers and W. was executed P. was a farmer and tenant to W., who was a stockingweaver. J. E. never served P., but lived with W. long enough to gain if a settlement by apprenticeship, if he could acquire one by such service. The sessions not having ever executed found that P. the indenture, or assigned the apprentice to, or assented to his service with W., it was held, that a settlement by apprenticeship was not proved. 1834. The KING against The Inhabit ants of John Ivey, the pauper's father, lived with him, and was employed as a stocking-weaver. John Ivey, at the time he was bound, was living with his sister, Mrs. Ward, in Ditcheat. It was not proved that he went to Powell's, ST. CUTHBERT, and Mrs. Ward knew nothing about Powell. Under the WELLS. directions of the parish officers of Ditcheat, she took her brother to Wilmot, then residing at Wraxhall, in Ditcheat. When she first took him, Wilmot said he was not quite ready for him, and she, at his request, kept her brother for a quarter of a year, Wilmot paying for his board. After that time Wilmot sent for him, and the boy went and lived with him, first at Wraxhall, in Ditcheat, and afterwards in the appellant parish, for a sufficient length of time to give him a settlement by apprenticeship, if the settlement could be acquired by such service. Austin in support of the order of sessions. Holy Trinity v. Shoreditch (a) is in point. There Ferrer was bound apprentice to Truby, with intent that he should serve Green, which he did for three years in Shoreditch; and the Court were of opinion that Ferrer gained a settlement in Shoreditch, and said, that it was the same thing as if Truby had turned him over to Green. So in AllHallows-on-the-Wall v. St. Olave in Surrey (b), an apprentice was bound to A. in one parish, but by agreement served B. in another; and it was held that he gained a settlement in B.'s parish. In Rex v. Whitchurch (c), this Court seemed to think that there must be an actual consent of the first master to the particular (a) 1 Str. 10. And see 8 Mod. 169. (b) 1 Str. 554. 8 Mod. 168. service service with the second, and a knowledge of the latter that the service was in the character of apprentice. Here the consent of Powell, the first master, to the service with Wilmot, ought to be presumed after a lapse of sixty years; and Wilmot must have known that the pauper was an apprentice; for he, Wilmot, was one of the parties named in the indenture, and Powell was his tenant. It is clear that an unwritten consent to the second service was good; St. Olave v. All-Hallows. (a) Biggs Andrews, and Palmer, contrà. There was no binding to Wilmot, and it does not appear that Powell ever assigned the apprentice to, or assented to his service with Wilmot. The pauper was bound to Powell, and covenanted to serve him; and Powell covenanted to teach him the art and business of husbandry. This was a binding out of a parish apprentice, to which the consent of justices was necessary, and they signed an allowance of an indenture, whereby the pauper was bound to Powell and not to Wilmot. [Denman C. J. It does not appear that any master was bound by this indenture; it is stated merely that the original was signed by the parish officers and the pauper. Powell does not appear to have signed it. [Patteson J. There is no statement in the case to shew that Powell knew any thing of the transaction.] DENMAN C. J. There ought to have been a positive finding by the sessions of every essential fact. It is not found here that Powell ever assigned the apprentice to (a) 8 Mod. 168. 1834. The KING against The Inhabitants of ST. CUTHBERT, WELLS. VOL. V. 3 Q Wilmot, 1834. The KING against The Inhabit ants of Wilmot, or consented to his serving him. The order must be quashed. LITTLEDALE, TAUNTON, and PATTESON Js. con ST. CUTHBERT, curred. WELLS. Order of sessions quashed. 5498- 474 4388 Saturday, The parish of The KING against The Inhabitants of BISHOP Bishop Wear ON an appeal by the township of Bishop Wearmouth 191•8_448 mouth has no overseers of the VarE(45/228 poor, but con tains several townships separately maintaining and having dis against an order directed to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the township of Botchergate, in the parish of St. Cuthbert, Carlisle, in the county of Cumberland, and to the churchwardens and overseers of their own poor, the poor of the parish of Bishop Wearmouth in the county of Durham, and to each and every of them, for the removal of a pauper and his family from the township of Botchergate to the said parish of Bishop Wearmouth, the sessions confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case: — tinct overseers. townships are Wearmouth and to be removed The order of removal was made on the 28th of March 1829, and the execution of it duly suspended; the suspension was taken off on the 12th of September 1829, to the parish of Bishop Wearmouth. The order was served on the overseer of Bishop Wearmouth Panns, who refused to receive the paupers (on the ground that that township was not named in the order), unless certain expenses were waived. This being refused, the paupers were taken away. The removing parish afterwards served the churchwarden of the whole parish of Bishop Wearmouth with the order, and delivered the paupers to him. The latter took the paupers to the workhouse of Bishop Wearmouth township, where they were maintained: Held, by Denman C. J. and Littledale J., Taunton, and Patteson Js. dubitantibus, that the inhabitants of the township of Bishop Wearmouth, although they were not bound to maintain the pauper under the order, had reasonable ground for thinking that they might be aggrieved by it, and, therefore, were entitled to appeal. and |