1834. The KING against 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 The Inhabit ants of 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 It is clear that an unwritten consent to the second service was good; St. Olave v. All-Hallows. (a) tenant. 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. Order of sessions quashed. Saturday, The parish of Bishop Wear mouth has no overseers of the poor, but con tains several townships separately maintaining The KING against The Inhabitants of BISHOP ON WEARMOUTH. N an appeal by the township of Bishop Wearmouth 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: and having dis tinct overseers. townships are 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. dubilantibus, 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 1834. The KING against The Inhabitants of and a further order was then made by the magistrates on the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the said parish of Bishop Wearmouth to pay the sum of 57. 7s. 6d., being the expense incurred by the suspension of the said order of removal, to William Kidd or Luke Kidd, upon WEARMOUTH. demand, the said Luke Kidd being the overseer of the township of Botchergate, and father of the said William Kidd. The parish of Bishop Wearmouth consists of seven townships, each maintaining its own poor separately, and having separate and distinct overseers. Two of these townships are called Bishop Wearmouth and Bishop Wearmouth Panns respectively; and in the latter the pauper and his family were legally settled. There are no overseers of the poor of the parish of Bishop Wearmouth. When the order of removal was made, both the magistrates who signed the same, and the overseers of the removing township, knew of the division of the parish of Bishop Wearmouth into townships," each maintaining its own poor, and that the pauper's settlement was in the township of Bishop Wearmouth Panns, though, in the order of removal, it was declared and adjudged by them to be in the parish of Bishop Wearmouth. The suspended order was not served till after the suspension was taken off; namely, on the 28th of September 1829. The pauper and his children were taken by W. Kidd from the removing township to the township of Bishop Wearmouth Panns, with directions from the overseer of Botchergate to serve the order on, and deliver the paupers to, the overseer of the township of Bishop Wearmouth Panns, and to demand from him 5l. 7s. 6d. W. Kidd accordingly, on the 28th of September, took the paupers to that township, 3Q 2 BISHOP 1834. The KING against The Inhabit ants of BISHOP township, and saw the overseer there, to whom he delivered the order, and demanded from him the above sum. The overseer of Bishop Wearmouth Panns stated that he believed the settlement of the paupers was in his townWEARMOUTH. ship; but as the order of removal was not directed to the overseers of that township, but to the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of the parish of Bishop Wearmouth, he objected to it on account of its informality. Ultimately, however, he agreed, in order to save further expense and trouble, as he had no doubt of the paupers belonging to that township, that he would waive the objections he had taken to the order, if the overseer of the removing township would consent not to call for the 51. 7s. 6d. This proposal, however, not being acceded to, W. Kidd (to save expense) took the paupers to the workhouse of a neighbouring and distinct parish, leaving them as boarders; and returned home, taking with him the order of removal. The paupers remained there till the 22d of October following, when Luke Kidd, the overseer of the removing township, having paid for their board, took them with the same order to the same overseer of Bishop Wearmouth Panns, as before, and again attempted to prevail upon him to accept the paupers and pay the money. This, however, he refused to do, for the same reasons he had before assigned, acknowledging, at the same time, that the paupers belonged to his township; whereupon Luke Kidd took the order to Mr. W. Hills, one of the churchwardens of the whole parish of Bishop Wearmouth, and who resided in the township of Bishop Wearmouth, and informed him of the refusal by the overseer of Bishop Wearmouth Panns to receive the paupers. Mr. Hills accom |