Page images
PDF
EPUB

510

822.

174.

$.C. 2. Keb. plaintiff for his disorderly living, and beating his master

and mistress, and that this order was inroiled by the $. C. 5. Vent. clerk of the peace, as it ought to be, &c. To this the

plaintiff demurred. It was laid for the plaintiff, that the statute of 5. Eliz. C. 4. doth not give the justices, &c. any power to difcharge a master from his apprentice, in cale the fault be in the apprentice, but only to minister due

correction and punishment to him.- PERCURIAM. That (a) See the pre- bath been over-ruled here (a) The justices, &c have the eding care.

same power of discharging upon complaint of the mafier, as upon complaint of the apprentice; else that master would be in a moft illcase that were troubled with a bad apprentice, for he could by no means get rid of him. SECONDLY, It was urged on the plaintiff's behalf, that

he had not, for aught that appears, any notice or summons €) 11. Co. 99. to come and make his defence, as in Bagg's case (b), and

this very statute speaks of the appearance of the party, "and the hearing the matter before the justices, &c.SAUNDERS, for the defendant: In this case the justices are judges, and it being pleaded that such a judgment was given, that is enough, and it shall be intended all was regular.-TWISDEN and RAINSFORD, Justices. That which we doubt is, whether the defendant ought not to have gone to one justice, &c. FIRST, as the flatute directs, that he might take order and direction in it, and then if he could not compound and agree, he might have applied himself to the sessions ; for the statute intended there should be, it possible, a composure in private, and the

power of the feflions is conditional, viz. if the one juf(c) SeeGateley's tice cannot end it (c). In case of a bastard child, they cafe

, Şett. and cannot go to the sessions per saltum, and we doubt they Rem. page 131. cannot in this cafe: It is a new case, and the matter will pl. 136. that a be, whether this ought to be set down in the pleading: previous appliGation must

Adjournatur. be made to one justice; but it seems now to be settled, that the sessions have an original jurisdiction. Vide post. S. C. page 512. pl. 721, and the cases of Rex v. Amie, and Rex y. Heaseman,

The feffions 714. Du Hamel's Cafe, Easter Term, 35. Car. 2. Skinmay order part ner 108.--An apprentice to Du Hamel, upon complaint of the money to to the sessions, was discharged by their order for default be returned, when the apof the master, who was ordered to restore

part

of the moprentice is in

ney, and deliver up the indentures.-SAUNDERS, Chief fagli. Justice, said, That the justices having authority to dir

charge the apprentice by the 5. Eliz. C. 4. it was a power incident to their authority to order part of the money to be returned, and the indentures to be delivered up; and he cited a cafe where part of the money was returned, though the apprentice was discharged for his own fault.

715. Anonymous,

715. Anonymous, Trinity, 35. Car. 2. Skin. 114.-A Apprentice appoor boy who had been put out apprentice by the pearing to be an

ideor may be justices, after three years service, plainly appeared to be

discharged. an ideot incapable of learning his trade. Hereupon his master was discharged of him, and he was sent back to See Brownl. 67. his parish by an order of feflions.---Per CURIAM. I his is see pl. Zos. a good order. It would be hard upon the matter to keep one who could do him no service, while the parish should go

free. 716. It oodroffe v. Farnham, Trinity, 6. William & Mary, Gaming. 2. Vern. 291.- Per CURIAM. By the custom of London a master can justify turning away his apprentice for frequenting gaming-louses, and may justify it before the chamberlain.

717. Anonymous, Hilary Term. 35. Car. 2. Skinner, 18. justices at a -Four justices at a private feffions bad discharged an private feffions apprentice, and afterwards at a general seffions the juf

cannot discharge

apprentices. tices set that order aside ; and The COURT held, ihat an apprentice could not by 5. Eliz. C. 4. be discharged but at general feflions.

718. Ditton's Cafe. Easier Term, 1. Will. 3. 2. Salk. The feffions 491.-Exception to an order of sessions for the discharge may discharge of an apprentice, that Ditton the master was bound over an apprentice but did not appear; and it is expressly directed by the though the mas

ter do not apact, that the discharge is to be made on the appearance pear. of the mafter. Befides, there is another remedy, to pro- i. Mod. 2. ceed on the recognizance, which is forfeited by non- s. Mod. 139. appearance.- PER CURIAN. The act must have a rea- Salk. 68. fonable construction, to as not to permit the master to take advantage of liis own obitinacy ; otherwise, if the master run away, the apprentice can never be discharged.

719. Anonymous, Michaclmas Term, 7. It’ill. 3. Salk, 470. The order of -If an apprentice be discharged from his master, the fiffions must be statute requires that the discharge 1hould be under the under the bande hands and feals of four justices of the peace ; but in a jultices.

and seals of the certiorari, to reinove the order, it is sufficient in the re- s. C. Sett, and turn to take notice of the order so made, for it is not Rem. 132.

6. Mod. :82 necessary to certify the discharge itself,

720. Stephenson v. Holditch, Hilary, 1694, 2 Vern. 491. Marriage. --An apprentice in London had married without the privity of his master, yet that would not justify his master in turning him off, but mult sue lis covenant.

721. Rex

74.

The power of 721. Rex v. Gately, Mich. Term, 7. IVill. 3. Salk. 471. the sessions to

-Grcen was bound by indenture in this manner to discharge ap

Gately, a furgeon, “to learn the trade he now uleth.” prentices extends only to

Upon complaint of Green, that his mafter (who was a such trades as mountebank) did not inttruet him in his art of surgery, are fpecially but made him learn to dance upon the rope, &c. the fefnamed in the

fions discharged him. Exception was taken to the order, Statute.

that by it the servant was discharged from his matter,

whereas the discharge 1hould have been mutual. SECONDS. C. Carth. LY, because the statute 5. Eliz. C. 4. with regard to dis398, 366.

charging apprentices extends only to apprentices men5. Mod. 139,

tioned in that clause of the statute, and there neither 1. Saund. 313. surgeon nor mountebank is mentioned; and though a 1. Vent. 174. Jurgeon may be a trade within the statute, so far as that 1. Burn’s luft. a man cannot execute it without ferving an apprentice

Thip to it, because that clause of the statute is general, yet this part of the Atatute relating to the discharge of apprentices extends only to trades there mentioned. THIRDLY, The order is not under the seals of the jurtices, which is expressly required by the 'statute.- Per CURIAM. As to the first exception, the discharge of the servant is the discharge of the master. As fo the fecond, the clause of the statute relating to the discharge of apprentices is general, and goes to all manner of ap

prentices, even to those of a merchant, as it was adjudged (*) Ante, page in Hasuk/worth v. Hillary (a). But afterwards THE 5o9. pl. 711. COURT was of opinion, that the power of discharging

reaches only to the trades mentioned in the statute, among which a surgeon is not mentioned, for that although, as to the serving seven years apprenticeship, a surgeon comes under the general terms “arts and inyl“ teries,” yet the power of discharging reaches only to

the trades particularly mentioned (6).--But HALE, Chief (b) See allo Reg. o. Furnese, Juffice, was of another opinion. Sett. & Rem. 21.

accord. Sed vide Rix v. Cuttingburne, post. by which it appears to be now determined, that the authority of the iesions extends to other trades than those mentioned in the statute. The feflions

722. Rex v. Johnson, Trinity Term, 13. Will. 3. Sall. have original

68.--An apprentice was discharged by an original order entbority to dif- made at the feftions, without any previous application charge appren- to a justice of the peace, to endeavour to compromise the biots.

matter as the statute directs. After several debates, THIE Court declared, that if it had been res integra, they should have held a previous application to a juftice neceflary; but as so many original orders made at feffions had been confirmed here, it was too late to call the matter in question. And as to the fetond objection, that the justice had ordered money to be returned, that was

beld

held to be a power consequential upon their jurisdiction to discharge.

723. Reg. v. Rut:er, Easter Term, 10. Ann. MSS.-The The order of defendant applied to a single justice, under 5. Eliz. c. 4. ftate that the

sessions must f. 35. complainirg of the misconduct of his apprentice; defendant apa but on defect of relief he made application to the lesions, peared or was where an order was made that he should be discharged fummoned. from his apprentice.-SIR JAMES Montagu objected, that it did not appear upon the face of the order, that either the master or the apprentice were present; and he cited the case of Hawksworth v. Hillary (a):-PARKER, (a) Ante, page Chief Justice. The master must be there; for if the matter sog. pl. 711. cannot be made up by the justice, he must bind the inaster to appear in a recognizance at the next sessions ; and if he do not appear, the recognizance will be estreated.

724. Rex v. Vandeleer, Mich. Term, 4. Geo. 1. Stra. 69.-- The sessions The justices at the sessions orderan apprentice, who had been cannot order ill used, and not provided for, to be discharged, and that money to be

returned on dife the master, having received 5l. with him, 1hould refund charge of an 31. as a further provision for him. This was moved to apprentice. be quashed, because the statute 5. Eliz. C. 4. 1. 35. which gives the justices power to discharge apprentices upon complaint to them, gives them no authority to order any money to be returned.-PER CURIAM. It is very hard, that if the master misuse his apprentice the next day after he is bound, that he should pay back nothing if he is difcharged. It will be an encouragement to masters to treat their apprentices ill; but the statute being silent, the order muft be quashed (b).

(b) Sed vide the case of Hawksworth v. Hillary, ante, page 509. pl. 715. where it is held that the justices may order money to be returned as a consequer.ce of the power to discharge. S. P. Rex v. Johnstone, ante, page 512.pl.722. ; Ditton's case, ante, page 511. pl. 718.; and the case of Rex v. Amies, poft. p. 5:6. pl. 731.

725. Rex v. Hales-Owen, Trinity, 4. Geo. 1. Stra. 99. The order of -On an objection to an order of sessions discharging feffions must be an apprentice, Willes moved, that the statute only eni - inrolled. powers the justices to discharge for misbehaviour, and not for fickness; beside, they have not executed their autho- (-) Vide ante, rity as the statute requires, for the order is not enrolled !C). page 504. pl. -Both these exceptions to the form were held good; 698. and the order was quashed (d).

(4) Vide post.

pl. 737 726. Rex v. Gill, Hilary, 5. Geo. 1. Stra. 143.-PER It must appear Curiam. It has been so often resolved that the feffions that the master has an original jurisdiction to discharge apprentices, that was summoned,

Salk. 67, 68, we will not suffer it now to be questioned, though it might be doubtful upon the statute itself; but in these

LI

orders sell. Cal. 1136

491.

orders it must be set forth, that the master appeared OR (a) Sett. and was summoned, as was held in the case of Rex v. Rutter (a): Rem. 26. supra, and for want of this the order was qualhed. pl. 723. The feffions 727. Rex v. Hales-Owen, Trinity, 4. Geo. 1. Stra. 99, cannot order an — The sessions reciting that Joseph Higgen was bound apprentice to be out by indenture, as the statute requires, to John Parks, discharged on and being lame, having the king's evil, and in the opihis being af.

nion of surgeons incurable, for that reason they disficted incura- charge the master from his apprentice.-DARNELL, Serbly with the jeant, urged in support of the order, that it was good beking's evil.

cause the master cannot now have the end of the binding, which was the service of the apprentice.-WILIES replied, that the statute only enables the justices to discharge

for misbehaviour, not for fickness. Several other excep(6) Ante,pl.725. tions were taken as to the form of the order (6.); but THE

Court quashed the order as to the substance, for the mafter takes him for better or worse, and is to provide for him in sickness and in health.

peace for the county have a

A. is bound an

728. Rex v. Collingburne, Mich. Term, 12. Geo. 1. apprentice to B. Strange, 663. This was an order of seffions made at who is a free. Hicks's Hall, for the discharge of an apprentice to a freeman of the city man of the city of London, and who was bound and inbeing bound and rolled there: and the order being removed hither, thefe înrolled there, exceptions were taken to it. 1. That the apprentice was then goes and bound and inrolled in London. 2. That he was not lives with his, bound by the justices. 3. That the binding was not a master in Mid- trade within the statute, the master being a glazier. To desex. The justices of the these exceptions it was answered, that the clause of the

statute 5. Eliz. c. 4. f. 35. enacts, “ That if any master

“ Thall misuse his apprentice, he shall repair unto one jufconcurrent ju“ tice of the peace where he dwelleth,&c. and, “That sisdiction with :be city, and may

“ although the customs of London and Norwich are sadischarge the “ ved," the statute has always received a large construcapprentice. tion in favour of the jurisdiáion of justices; for though s. c. Seit. Cal. upon the master's complaint no power is given to the 285. Ld. Ray, 1410

justices to discharge, yet in the case of Hawksworth D.

Hillary (a) it is held that it was reasonable, and within (a) 1. Saund,

the intent of the statute, that an apprentice should be difcharged from an ill master, as well as a master should be

discharged from an ill apprentice; and in the case of WilAnte, page 509. kins v. Edwards (6) there is the same point, as well as in pl. 731.

1. Vent. 174. The First and principal question is, Whether (b)... Mod. 286. the court of feffions at Hicks's Hall have any jurisdiction Ante, page 509. pl. 713.

to discharge an apprentice to a freeman of London? or, Whether he is not to be discharged only by the mayor's court? It is found, that the apprentice lived with his master out of the city of London, and within the jurisdiction of the

justices

[ocr errors]

1. Mod. 2.

« PreviousContinue »