during the term. The pauper served six years and two months in Somerby under this indenture, when he met with an accident, and became unable to work. He was, in consequence, taken by his master, on the morning following the accident, to his father's house in Melton Mowbray (which was six miles from Somerby) for the benefit of a surgeon's attendance, and he slept at his father's house from that time until the cancellation after mentioned, being a period of more than seventy days. His master called upon him at his father's house from time to time, to see how he was; and during that time, and whilst he was incapacitated from his ordinary employment under the indenture, his master asked him to carry out, and sell in the villages round about Melton Mowbray, lottery tickets, by which the holders would be entitled to draw in a lottery, where the prizes were articles manufactured by the master in his trade. This the pauper consented to do, and did, until the cancellation after mentioned. As a compensation for this service, the pauper received 1s. on the sale of each ticket, which his master observed would help to maintain him. The master also, on first taking the pauper to Melton Mowbray, promised to pay the surgeon his bill, but, he failing to do so, the pauper paid it himself. On the 1st February 1812 the pauper's father bought out the pauper's time for two guineas, which he paid to the master. His indenture was thereupon cancelled, and the master received such tickets as remained unsold. The questions for the opinion of the Court were, whether, under the circumstances stated in the case, there was either maintenance of the apprentice by the master in Melton Mowbray under the indenture, or service Y 3 1838. The QUEEN against The Inhabitants of SOMERBY. 1838. The QUEEN against The Inhabitants of SOMERBY. service by the apprentice in Melton Mowbray under it. If the Court should be of opinion that there was either such maintenance or such service, the order of sessions was to be quashed; if otherwise, to be confirmed. Sir W. W. Follett, Burnaby, and Goldsmid, in support of the order of sessions. There was neither maintenance nor service under the indenture. Any assistance the pauper may have received from the sale of lottery tickets was unconnected with his service as apprentice, and was the subject of a distinct contract. The surgeon's bill was not paid by the master, nor was he in fact liable to pay it. The residence at Melton Mowbray should have been for the purposes of the apprenticeship, and in consequence of it; Rex v. Ilkeston (a). The cases of Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon (b) and Rex v. Banbury (c) will be relied on; those cases depend on Rex v. Charles (d), but there the master and apprentice were both resident in the same parish. [Williams J. How is the case distinguishable from Rex v. Stratford-upon-Avon (b)? In that case, as in this, the pauper was resident in a different parish on account of sickness, and was employed by the master to go errands, and do other work for him.] Here the only employment of the pauper in Melton Mowbray was not only unconnected with the object of the apprenticeship, but was also an illegal occupation. There are several acts of parliament which make the sale of such lottery tickets illegal (e). They are declared by the legislature to be a nuisance. (a) 4 B. & C. 64. (c) 3 B. & Ad. 706. [Lord Denman C. J. (b) 11 East, 176. (d) Bur. S. C. 706. (e) See 10 & 11 W. 3. c. 17.; 9 Ann. c. 6. ; 8 G. 1. c. 2.; 12 G. 2. e. 28.; 42 G. 3. c. 119. Suppose Suppose the master had employed his apprentice to do work for him on the highway under circumstances that occasioned a nuisance, would he gain no settlement?] The service performed would give no settlement unless the master could have compelled him to do it; otherwise he might gain it by being employed to make signals in aid of smugglers. As to the maintenance derived from the sale of the tickets, it was not only a distinct contract, but was also in the nature of a bribe to do an illegal act. J. Hildyard and G. T. White, contrà, were stopped by the Court. Lord DENMAN C. J. The relation of apprentice continued during the residence of the pauper in Melton Mowbray. As to the alleged illegality of his occupation there, it would be hard, under such circumstances, to deprive him of his right of settlement, if he only obeyed his master's orders. If, indeed, the master and his apprentice had conspired to do unlawful acts, the case might have been different, and perhaps no settlement might then have been gained. PATTESON, WILLIAMS, and COLERIDGE JS. concurred. S. Order quashed. 1838. The QUEEN against The Inhabit ants of SOMERBY. 1838. Saturday, December 1st. 1. Where goods are shipped under SHIPTON against THORNTON. ASSUMPSIT. The first count of the declaration (of Trinity term, 9 G. 4.) stated that, whereas, a bill of lading before the making of the promise &c., plaintiff was in a general ship, which is prevented from completing the voyage in consequence of ⚫damage occasioned by tempest, quære, whether the master is bound, if he has an opportunity, to forward the master and owner of the ship James Scott, in which, before the making of the said promise, divers goods, to wit &c., had been shipped, to be carried therein, on freight, from Singapore in the East Indies to London, consigned to defendant; and whereas, before the making of the said promise, the said ship, in the course of the voyage from Singapore to London, by and through the perils of the sea and stormy weather &c., was complace of desti- pelled to go to Batavia in the island of Java, at which place the said ship afterwards, and before the making of the said promise, arrived in a state much damaged; and thereupon and there, to wit at Batavia aforesaid, it became and was necessary to unload the said goods, wares, &c., out of the said ship, and to put and goods by some other conveyance to the nation. 2. At any rate, he is at liberty to do so, by a conveyance equally cheap, if he think fit; and, if the goods arrive at the place of destination by such other conveyance, he is entitled, on the freighter obtaining the goods, to the whole freight originally contracted for; though the freighter was named as consignee in the original bill of lading, and the bill of lading under which the goods are shipped by the second conveyance makes another party consignee; and though, by the second conveyance, the goods are carried for less than the freight originally contracted for. 3. Defendant was interested solely in certain goods conveyed by the ship S., and was also interested jointly with his partners, who with him formed the firm of T. and W., in other goods also sent by the ship S. He signed a promise to make certain payments in respect of freight on board the S., not stating upon which goods, beginning, “I hereby engage to pay," but signed with the style of T. and W. In an action against him solely, for the freight of his own goods: Held, that such engagement was evidence of a several contract by him, and, for the purpose of the action, required only one stamp. 4. A witness called by plaintiff stated, on the voir dire, that he had, as agent for plaintiff, instructed an attorney, E., to commence the suit: that E. had carried on the suit to a certain stage, and had died; that witness had not told E. that he was to look to plaintiff only for costs; that no demand of costs had been made upon himself; and that he had not been released. It did not appear under what circumstances the papers had been handed over to the present attorney, nor whether the costs of E. had been discharged. Held, that these facts did not shew an interest sufficient to disqualify the witness. load load such part of the said goods as was not damaged by count 1838. SHIPTON against THORNTON. |