Page images
PDF
EPUB

REX V.

of PORTSIA.

why should it not be so? It might be an ample one: they were not to presume that it was not an equivalent. It INHABITANTS appears to be allowed by the master to the father for the purpose of thus providing for his son. The cited case of Pennington v. Sudall is no authority: the point was not determined. The Court was glad to be relieved of it by MR. WALLACE's offer.-MR. JUSTICE Aston hinted, Vide ante, page that the 45th section of this act, which says, “ that 475. pl. 666. “ where any thing or things, not being lawful money of Great Britain, shall dire&tly or indirectly be given," means such other equivalents as a horse, or other valuable thing of that sort; not such an agreement as this is, “ to “provide necessaries for a fon (a).” As to the second (a) Burr. S. C. point, they all held, that the master was not bound to No. 48. answer the question which the appellant's counsel put to him.-Rule discharged. Both orders affirmed.

C.
9.

f.

is

689. Rex v. Highnam, Hilary Term, 25. Geo. 3. Editor's An agreement of MSS.- Edward Reading, when seventeen years of age, apprenticeship went to William Evans, in Gloucester, carpenter, for the entered into purpose of being his apprentice for four years, and paid fave the expence him four guineas in consideration ; but to save the ex- of indentures, pences of indentures and duty, he and his master signed and to avoid the an agreement on unstamped paper, whereby Reading co-payment of the venanted to serve Evans for four years ; Evans to pay to

duties imposed

by the 8. Ann. Reading 4s. 6d. a-week for the first year, 5s. for the second

32. year, and 6s. for the third and fourth years. And it was void and of na further agreed by parole that Evans should find his own effe&. diet and lodging, be his own master on Sundays, and not see S. C. post. be paid for the time he should absent himself from work. - LORD MANSFIELD. It is manifest, even on the face of the written agreement, that a fraud on the revenue was intended : it is clear that an apprenticeship was meant; but by the 8. Ann. c. 9. a certain duty is imposed on an agreement of this description (b), and this duty not hav- (b) Ante, page ing been paid by the master as the act directs, the agree. 472. pl. 659. ment is void.

690. Rex v. Walton in Le Dale, Hilary Term, 30. Geo. 3. An indenture in 3. Term Rep. 515--Two justices removed Richard C:in- which an aplife the pauper and his family from Walton in Le Dale, in prentice cove

rs that he Lancashire, to Kirkbam, in the said county. On appeal « would

3t. his it was admitted, that the pauper's original settlement was" own expence in Kirkham; but the appellants infifted, that he had gained“ provide for a new settlement by apprenticeship in Walton; and in himself meat, support of it offered in evidence an indenture of appren- « ing, lodging, “ apparel, and physic, at all times during the term, and that the master should pay him five shillings a week for the first three years, and seven Billings a-week for the remainder of " the term," does not require the additional fiamps impused by 8. Ann. c. 9. f. 45.

ticeship,

Rexo. ticeship, by which he bound himself to Croft and Halls WALTON IN callico-printers, for seven years. The indenture condi Dale.

tained, besides the usual covenants, a covenant on the part of the pauper, that he would at his own expence provide for himself meat, drink, washing, lodging, apparel, and physic at all times during the term; and also a covenant on the part of Croft and Hall to pay the pauper for the firit, fecond, and third years, five shillings per week, for the fourth and fifth years fix thillings per week, and for the fixth and seventh years seven íhillings per week. The indenture also contained a proviso, that in case the pauper should be visited with fickness, and thereby rendered unable to perform his work, or should neglect to do or perform the same, he should not be entitled to any wages during the time he should be so indisposed, or viited with fickness, or should neglect to work : and in case he was not employed at the business for which he was bound, then the masters should be at liberty to reduce one half of his wages for two months yearly during the term. The pauper served under this indenture two years in Walton. The indenture was written on the proper stamp; but no additional duty was paid according to the 8. Ann. c. 9. The respondents inlifted, that the indenture was inadmiffible in evidence, and void, not only for want of a stamp for the additional duty, but also on account of the nature of the contract, and the clauses contained in the indenture ; but the feffions thought that the indenture was admiffible in evidence, and that it was not void, and they reversed the order (a).-BEARCROFT was to have argued in support of the order of feffions ; but the Court withed to hear the other side firft.-CALDECOTT, contra, contended, that the indenture was not admiffible in evidence, because there was no additional itamp on it for the value of the maintenance of the ap. prentice during the term ; and as this is a burden which the law throws on every master, to be relieved from it is a benefit within the 8. Ann. c. 9. f. 45.; for that statute uses the word “thing," which is fufficiently comprehenfive to include the present cafe. In Rex v. Northowram (6), an agreement before the binding to pay the mafter thirty Thillings to clothe the apprentice was held not to be within the statute of Ann. though it may fairly be inferred from what fell from the Court, that if the money had been given for other articles, or for clothes after the

(a) It was admitted but not fated tice was employed as a printer.
in the case, that the wages were equi. (6) Burr, S.C. 145.
valent to the board whilft the appren.

binding,

Rex v.

[ocr errors]

binding, it would have been within the act. And in a manuscript note of Penninston v. Sudall (a); Aston, Juf- WALTON IN tice (speaking of this case of Rex v. Northowram), faid, the Court considered the case of Rex v. Northowram (a) Ante, page merely as the taking of an apprentice ready clothes. - 488. pl. 686. But LEE, Chief Justice, and PROBYN, Justice, said, if the payment of the thirty shillings had been fu' sequent to the binding, it would have been a good consideration. In Pennington v. Sudall, where an objection was made to the plaintiff's being admitted to his freedom of the borbugh of Lancaster by apprenticeship, because no additional duty had been paid for his maintenance, from which the master was exempt by a covenant in the indenture, Lord MANSFIELD hinted a very Itrong opinion, that the duty Thould have been paid for it; and Aston, Justice, said in express terms, that the maintenance of the apprentice was an obligation thrown by law on the matter. This is not like the case of Rex v. Portsea (b), where the ap- (b) Burr, S. C. prentice's father agreed to provide necessaries for his son, 834.

Ante, page 491. in confideration of a weekly sum to be paid to him by the pl. 688. matter : there the weekly payment was allowed by the faster to the father for the express purpose of thus providing for his fon. And the Court said, that as there was nothing to thew that the weekly allowance was not what it professed to be, namely, an equivalent, they would not presume that it was not an equivalent. But here the weekly payments are not stated to be for the -purpose of relieving the master from the burden of the

maintenance, &c.; neither can it be collected from the case that those payments are in fact an equivalent But even if the weekly fums were an equivalent for the maintenance, ftill washing, lodging, and inedicines, are dues arising out of the relationihip of master and servant, and confequently to be exempt from these is also a benefit to the mafter, for which an additional duty ought to have been paid. These benefits are capable of being estimated, and in truth are always valued at the stamp-office. Now if an additional duty ought to have been paid for all or either of the above benefits, this indenture was void, and ought not to have been received in evidence.- LORD KENYON, Chief Justice. The case of Pennington v. Sudall, which has been cited, cannot be taken as an authority deciding any thing. If we were to infer any thing from the case, it would rather be the reverse of that which has been supposed; because the case went off on an agreement to admit the apprentice to his freedom, which could only have been done under the idea that he had served a legal apprenticeship. The principal question, relative to Kk

the

Rex .

the additional stamp-duty, cannot be decided on this case, WALTON IN as it is now stated. I believe it is the practice at the LE DALE.

stamp-office to set a value on these forts of benefits as a matter of course, wlien the indentures are carried to them, Now here the apprentice ftipulated to provide himself with certain things, which, it is said, the master is bound by law to provide for him, and for which it is contended an additional stamp duty ought to have been paid, because it is a benefit to the masler; but, on the other hand, the master was to make certain weekly payments to the apprentice. Then how can we say that these payments were not an equivalent for the maintenance, &c. I believe they are much more. But before we can decide the material question, the justices must find the fact, whether these

payments were or were not an equivalent. I therefore Itudioully avoid giving any opinion on the general question: and it is enough for me to say at present, that it does not appear but that the master gave an equivalent for the benefit which he received.-BULLER, Justice. I

do not see any thing like a benefit to the master, for which · an additional duty ought to have been paid. The master

covenanted to pay the apprentice so much per week; that clearly is not within the itatute. Then it was provided, that in case the apprentice 1hould be ill and unable to perform his bufmels, or neglect to do it, he should not receive any wages: but this was no benefit to the master; it was only an agreement that he should not pay, but not that he should receive any thing.- Per CURIAM. Order of feflions confirmed.

[ocr errors]

Money given hy' 691. Rex v. In:habitants of St. Petrox, in Dartmouth, the parish-ofti. Hilary Term, 31. Geo. 3. 4. Term Rep. 196.– Two jufcers (in the case tices removed Ann Hambling and her two children from binding) as the St. Petrox, in Dartmouil, to Slapton, both in the county of conlideration of Devon. The feflions on appeal qualued that order, fubtaking an ap- ject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: prentice, is not Yohir Hambling, the father of the pauper's husband John imposed by the Hambling deceased, having been told by the parish -officers 8. tinn. c. 9.

of Townfall that they would give him twenty shillings to 1.35.tor itcomes bind out his son an apprentice, if he would find a place within the cx. for him, did in July 1768 agree with Mary Flayne, widow, cer.ion to it in who occupied a farm in Slapton, to bind his fon John

40. as heing at ibe public

Han bling deceased, then aged about eight years, an apcharge of ibe

prentice to Richard Hayne, ton of Mary Hayne, who was parills; neither then between the age of fourteen and fifteen, and was i, any duty pay. then resident in his inother's house as a part of her faable for any conlideration-money, unluís it be given to the master or mistress of the apprentice.

1.

mily, and had no habitation or business of his own. REX v. INHAWhen this agreement was made between Hambling the BITANTS Of father and Mary Hayne, they alio agreed that he, Hambling, should pay to Mary Hayne twenty shillings as a consideration for such apprenticeship; but it did not appear that Mary Hayne knew that any promise was made by the overseers of Townstall to Hambling, with respect to the advancing of any money to him for this purpose. Hambling the father afterwards received twenty shillings from the churchwardens and overseers of Townshall, five shillings of which he paid to Mary Hayne, and promised to pay her the rest at five shillings a time, but applied the remaining fifteen shillings to his own use. It appeared by the indenture of apprenticeship, dated 21st July 1768, that John Hambling the fon, of his own free will, and with the consent of his father, voluntarily bound himself apprentice to Richard Hayne, of Slapton, till he should attain the age of twenty-one, to learn the art of husbandry. This indenture was signed by Hambling the father and Hambling the son, and by Richard Hayne, and was stamped with an half-crown stamp (a); but had no stamp thereon for the confideration-money. Some time in April previous to the date of the indenture, 4. Hambling the fac ther received from the parish of Townstall five thillings as need money, he having applied for relief. The cafe also stated, that 7. Hambling the son lived in Mary Hayne's house, in Slapton, till he was twenty years old. MORRIS and CLAPP, in support of the order of sessions, admitted that no advantage could now be taken of the infancy of the master, for that only rendered the indenture voidable ; but contended, that it was void for want of the additional stamp, required by the Itatute of Anne (6), (6) 8. Ann. C. 9. denoting the fixpence duty on the confideration-money: 1:35, 36. for though the twenty Thillings were not actually paid, Ante, page 472 yet part of the sun was, and the remainder was agreed to

ST. PATROX.

pl. 659. and pl.

660. be paid; and the statute attaches on all considerationmoney. paid, agreed, or contracted for.And the mo. ther of the infant must be considered as the agent for her son in receiving the five shillings, and agreeing for the remainder ; for it cannot be denied but that she acted as agent for her fon in some part of the transaction, and then she must be so considered in every part: and the 35th section speaks of money given to, or to the use of, the mafter. But if the be not taken to be the agent for her fon, then it was only a nominal and colourable binding to the fon, but fubftantially a binding to the mother; in which case this was a fraud on the revenue laws, and the

(a) Which was then the proper Atamp.

KK 2

whole

« PreviousContinue »