Page images

Rox v.

their general relief. In construing the words, I see no reason for confining the powers of binding on the inhabitants of the parish; they ought to be extended to perfons occupying lands in the parish, though rending out of it. Then it is said, that if this construction be put upon the Itatute, the party may be doubly charged in the parish in which he lives in respect of his inhabitancy, in that in which he has lands in respect of his occupation of them; but if he find himself aggrieved he may appeal to the ferfions, and we must take it for granted that the justices will do what is right. They are to adapt the charge to the fize of the property which the person charged poffefses ; and these are incidental charges which fall on him in respect of that property. I remember it was argued in a former court on this fubject, that if this construction of the ftatute was to prevail, some parishes would disburden themselves of many of their poor, by apprenticing out their poor children to persons living out of the parish. But the answer to any such argument is, that at the time when the 43. Eliz. was palied, the statute 13. & 14. Car. 2. was not in existence. However, the ground of my decision here is, that this is one of the modes provided for the maintenance of the poor in this statute, which impoles the duty in respect of the property.- AsuhURST, BULLER, and GROSE, Justices, of the fame opinion.-Order of feflions confirmed.


An indenture of 794. Rex v. Hamstall Ridlware, Trinity Term, 29. Geo. 3, a parisk appren. 3. Term Rep. 380.-The pauper Ann Cradock being fettled sice atiented to at Kudgiv, was bound by indentures by the parith-oicers by two juftices of Rud ly as a parith apprentice to Susannah Cotton, of the feparately is

fame place, who alligned her by deed to S. IFalker, of Hamjiall Ridwure, with whom the resided there under the indenture for more than forty days, and till the time of his death, when the was removed by order of two juftices from Hamfall Ridware to Rudgly. The indenture was feparately attented to by two justices of the peace by signing the fame; but the two justices did not ajjent to or Jign the same at the jame time, or in the presence of each other. The court of sellions at Stafford qualhed the order by which the pauper was removed to Rudges.Lord KENYON, Chief fufiice. Perhaps the rule requiring the concurrence of two magistrates at the same time may be fometimes attended with inconvenience: but the rule has been long fettled to be, that the concurrence of justices together is not necessary where the act to be done is merely n:inisterial ; but they must confer together and form a joint opinion where the act is of a judicial nature.

[ocr errors]

It has been held (whether rightly fo or not we are not now

Rex v. to enquire), that the allowance of a poor rate is an act mere


RidwARE. iy minifterial, and that being once established, the confequence results, that the two magiftrates need not meet when they allow the rate. The words, indeed, of the section on which this question arises, are nearly fimilar to those used in the first, under which the poor rate is to be allowed: but when the nature of this case is considered, it appears to be one of the moit serious subjects that fall within the decision of the justices; for they are empowered by this act of parliament to take children out of the arms of their parents, and to bind them out as appren-tices till they are twenty-one years of age. The law has made them the guardians for those children, who have no others to take care of them, and who ought to judge of the fitness of the persons to whom the poor children are thus to be apprenticed; not the overseers, who are frequently obscure people, and perhaps in managing the business of the parish are not always attentive to the feelings of parents. But the legislature intended that the magistrates ihould have a check and controul over the parith-officers

: in this instance ; and in my mind they are called upon to examine with the most minute and anxious attention the situations of the masters to whom the apprentices are 'to be bound, and to exercise their judgment folemnly and soberly before they allow or dilallow the act of the parish-officers; for which purpose it is necessary that they Thould confer together.- ASHHURST, Justice, Ihe act of the justices in this case is in its nature an act of judge ment; they are the guardians of the morals of the people, and ought to take care that the apprentices are not placed with matters who may corrupt their morals. The justices therefore'lhould enquire particularly whether or not they ought to allow the binding by the parish-officers.; and I think they would be guilty of a breach of duty, if they implicitly gave their affent without examining into the circumstances of the case.-BULLER, Juflice. It is not easily to be reconciled with any principle of common sense to say, that an act which is merely ministerial must be done with the conent of two juftices; and I much doubt whether the perfons who brought in the act (43. Eliz. c. 2.), requiring the consent of two inagiftrates to the allowance of a poor rate, intended that the act of allowing jt should be only minifterial; for it seems absurd to require the asient of two justices, and yet not to give them the power of withholding it if they see occasion. But the legislature has not given them any authority to exercise their judginent upon that subject; and therefore this




Rex v. court has said on the construction of that statute that HAMSTALL their allowance of the rate is merely ministerial : but the

act of affenting to the binding of parish-apprentices is purely judicial; for on appeal the justices at the sessions are not only to consider the propriety of binding out the apprentice, but also whether the master be bound to take him.--Grose, Justice. This act is peculiariy of a judicial nature, for the magistrates are appointed the guardians of those who have no other guardians; they should therefore exercise their judgment in this case with great deliberation.--Order of seffions quashed.

tice under the

In binding a 795. Rexv. Tunstead and Happing, Hilary Term, 30. Gen.z. parish appren- 3. Term Rep. 523.—The directors and guardians of the

poor within the hundreds of Tunstead and Happing, in the ftat. 20. Geo. 3. c. 36. it is not county of Norfolk, by virtue of the power given them by neceffary that the 25. Geo. 3. c. 27. with the consent of two justices, the matter bound a poor male child belonging to one of the hundreds should actually apprentice to Jofeph Reynolds, who is an occupies of lands but rith: if he be not an inhabitant within the hundreds. Reynolds appealed an occupier there to the court of sessions, who were of opinion that he was it is sufficient ; not bound to receive the apprentice, because he was not for inbabitant

an inhabitant as well as occupier; subject, however, to the for this purpose opinion of this court on a cafe ftating these facts. By the synonymous. 25. Geo. 3. c. 27: “ The directors are empowered, with

" the consent of two justices for the county of Norfolk, * to bind any child or children to be apprentices to any " occupier or occupiers of lands or tenements, or to any

person or persons using any trade in any parish, hamlet, « or place within the hundreds whom they shall judge

proper persons to take apprentices, &c.; and the per

fons to whom such children shall be bound apprentices, “ fhall be bound to receive and provide for such appren* tices in like manner as they are now obliged by the

laws in being to provide for apprentices.”—MIngavand COOPER, in fupport of the order of feflions, observed, that the tatutes 20. Geo. 3. c. 36. and 25. Geo. 3, c. 27. were

made in pari materia, and ought therefore to be taken (.) 1.BHT.447 into consideration together (a). The former is en

titled, “ Anact for obviating doubts touching the binding “ and receiving of poor children apprentices, in pursuance of several acts of parliament made for the relief of the “ poor within particular incorporated hundreds or diru tri&ts.” It recites, " That feveral acts had been paffed “ for the better relief and employment of the poor in “ particular incorporated hundreds, whereby power is “ given to bind poor children apprentices under certain "reftrictions therein mentioned, and that doubts had "arifen whether persons are compellable to receive such

REX v. poor children, &c.” And it enacts, “That such per- TUNSTEAD and " fons thall be compellable to receive and provide for HapPING. “ such poor children ; with a proviso, that nothing in “ the act thall be construed to compel any person to take “ any such poor child apprentice, unless such person shall be an inhabitant and occupier of lands, &c, in the parish " to which such child belongs.” Now the clear meaning

of these two itatútes taken together is, that no person thall be bound to receive an apprentice unless he be an inhabitant as well as occupier in the parish ; and this case is dif. tinguishable from that of Rex v. Clapp (a), for that was (a) Ante, page determined on the 43. Eliz. c. 2.-LORD KENYON, Chief 559. pl. 793. Justice (stopping Le Blanc Serjeant, and Preston, contra). This case is not to be distinguished on principle from that of Rex v. Clapp; and we see no reason to depart froin the opinion which we gave in that case. It would require very strong words to convince me that this particular district should be governed by a different law from the generality of parishes throughout the kingdom. If indeed the legislature had used imperative words, we muft have been bound by them ; but there are none such in this statute. Here great stress has been laid on the proviso in 20. Geo. 3. which has the words inbabitants and occupiers. Now the statute 43. Eliz. uses the word inhabitants, which has been held not to be confined to refiants. And LORD COKE (6), in his reading (6) 2. Inft.702. on the 22. Hen. 8. c. 5. relative to the repairing of bridges by the inhabitants of counties, says, that the word inhabitants includes those who occupy lands in the county, though they do not reside there. For some purposes, inhabia tants and occupiers are synonymous terms. Where a perfon derives a benefit from property which he occupies in a parish, he is liable to contribute to the ease of it. And in Rex v. Clapp we observed, that this was one of the modes by which he was to contribute to the ease of his parish. If indeed the legislature had added the word resiants to inhabitants in this act of parliament, that would have confined this burden to persons actually residing within the parish.-The three other Judges concurring, Order of sessions quashed.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]


X. Of apprentices to SEA-SERVICE. Parish-boy may 796. By 2. & 3. Ann. c. 6. f. 1. “WHEREAS the giving he put out apo “ due encouragement to such of the youth of this kingprentice to the

“ dom as fhall voluntarily betake themselves to the fea-
fea fervice to
masters of ships,

“ service and practice of navigation, and obliging others
“ who by reason of their own or their parents poverty are
"deftitute of employment, or any lawful means whereby
“ to maintain themielves, may greatly tend to the increase
is of able and experienced mariners and feamen, for the
“ service of her majesty's ROYAL NAVY, and for the car-
“ rying on the trade and commerce of this kingdom ;
" BE IT ENACTED, That it shall and may be lawful to
" and for two or more justices of the peace in their se-
“ veral and respective counties, ridings, or divisions, as
" also to and for ail mayors, aldermen, bailiffs, and other
“ chief officers and magistrates of any city, borough, or
“ town-corporate, within her majesty's kingdom of En-
"gland, dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-
Tweed, and likewise to and for the churchwardens and

over seers of the poor for the time being, of the several
" and respective parishes within the places aforesaid, by
" and with the consent and approbation of such justices
“ of the peace, mayors, aldermen, bailiffs, or other the
" chief ofhcers or magistrates aforesaid, to bind or put

“ out any boy or boys who is are or shall be of the age (a) See 4, Ann: “ of ten years or upwards (a), or who is are or shall be c: 5.1.16. poft. « chargeable, or whose parents are or shall become charge

able to the respective parish or parishes wherein they " inhabit, or who shall beg for alms, to be apprentice and

apprentices to the sea-service, to any of her majesty's

subjects, being masters or owners of any ship or vessel “ used in sea-service, and belonging to any port or ports

within the kingdom of England, dominion of Wales, "and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed aforesaid, for so long

a time and until such boys shall respectively attain or

come to the age of one-and twenty years; and such bind"ing out any such apprentice Thall be as effectual in the "" law, to all intents and purposes, as if such boy were of .. full age, and by indenture had bound himself an appren

(6 tice.” Boy's age to be 797." And to the end that the time of the continuance

“ of the service of such apprentice or apprentices may the indentures, &c. “ more plainly and certainly appear, the age of every such

“ boy fo to be bound apprentice shall be mentioned and
«: inserted in his indentures, being taken truly from a

« copy

inserted in his


« PreviousContinue »