824 A P P R E 
upon any one ; and therefore the court would not dif- 
turb what the feffions had done, but confirmed the order. 
2 Salk. 491. 
M. i2Geo. III. K. and Botley. The parifh officers of 
Botley appointed an apprentice to be bound to Edward 
Clowerley ; who appealed to the feffions. The feffions dif- 
•chaYge the appointment, and ftate the cafe fpecially : That 
it appears to them upon the evidence, that Edward Clow¬ 
erley refules in the parifh of Hound, but is owner and oc¬ 
cupier of an eftate in the parifh of Botley, of the yearly 
Value of 30I. upon which there is a houfe inhabited by a 
weekly labourer of the faid Edward for the better manag¬ 
ing the farm: that the faid Edward did not refide or lodge 
in the faid parifh of Botley, but paid church and poor 
rates for the premifes: that a very confiderable part of the 
lands of Botley is occupied by perfons redding in other 
parifhes. In fupport of the order of feffions, it was con¬ 
tended, that the feffions have a difcretionary power to judge 
of the fitnefs or unfitnefs of binding apprentices to particu¬ 
lar perfons-* and having by their determination declared, 
that Clowerley ought to be relieved from the apprentice, 
they had determined the queftion, and the court could not 
entertain any queftion of law about it. It was fuggefted, 
that the only queftion agitated at the feffions and intended 
to be referred to this court was, whether occupiers of 
land, not living within the parifh where the land lies, are 
bound by law to take apprentices. And it not appearing 
in the ftate of the cafe, whether the feffions had determi¬ 
ned on the unfitnefs of that particular perfon, or on the 
point of law in general, of his not being liable in refpedl 
of his living out of the pari fit; L. Mansfield faid that there 
was no coming at the point on that ftate of the cafe by the 
feffions ; but he thought, if they had determined it on the 
latter ground, they had done very right. Mr. J. Afton 
was of the fame opinion, and obferved how hard it might 
be to bind an apprentice on a perfon occupying lands in 
one parifh, and being a houfekeeper in a very difttant pa¬ 
rifh. Mr. J. Willes alfented. And the rule for quafhing 
the order of feffions was difeharged, and the feffions order 
confirmed. Boti. 389. Fofft. 79. 
H. 29 Geo. III. K. v. John Clapp. The parifh officers of 
Sowton, Devon, having, with the affent of two juftices, 
apprenticed Sarah Hellier, a poor child of Sowton, to the 
defendant according to the ftatute ; he appealed to the 
feffions, w ho confirmed the order, fubjeft to the opinion 
of the court on the following cafe.—The apprentice was 
bound (prout the indenture) to the appellant, who tefided 
in the parifh of Pinhoe, on an eftate yvhich he rented and 
occupied in the parifh of Sowton of*2ol. per ann. which 
was divided by the highway from the houfe in which he 
lived. There was no houfe on the eftate of which he was 
the occupier. The indenture, together with the apprentice, 
was tendered to the appellant in the parifh of Sowton, in 
the highway adjoining to the faid eftate lying in the parifh 
of Sowton.—Eaft argued in the fupport of the order of 
feffions: and Fanfhaw and Clapp contra. —L. Kenyon, 
Ch. J. It is highly fit that this queftion fhould not re¬ 
main any longer undecided. I remember a much older 
cafe than either of thole mentioned at the bar, in which 
this queftion was difeuffed, but not decided. Thequeftion 
arifes on the fifth feitionof 43 Eliz. c. 2. The general pur¬ 
view of that ftatute was to make a provifion for the main¬ 
tenance of the poor; and the firft claufe, in mentioning 
thofe who are to contribute to fuch maintenance, deferibes 
two forts of perfons, namely, inhabitants and occupiers of 
lands, Sec. Amongft other provifions for the poor, the 
fifth fedfion gives power to the parifh officers, with the 
afient of two magiftrates, to bind poor children apprentices 
cohere they Jl all fee convenient. It is true indeed that thofe 
words cannot be taken fo generally as they purport, be- 
caufe they cannot compel mere ftrangers, who ftand in no 
relation to the parifh, to take fuch apprentices. But I think 
that the context of the ftatute furnifhes the means of cir- 
cumfcribing the general extent of thofe words ; and that 
context I take from the firft claufe, which impofes other 
N T I C E. 
burdens of the fame nature on occupiers of lands , &c. as well 
as inhabitants. The general object of the aft was to coma 
pel all thofe, who had any property in the parifh, to con¬ 
tribute their due proportion towards the maintenance of 
the poor; and the receiving apprentices is one mode of 
contributing to their general relief. In conftruing thefe 
words, I fee no reafon for confining the power of bindiim 
to the inhabitants of the pari ft) ; they ought to be extend¬ 
ed to perfons occupying lands in the parifh, though ref ding 
out of it. Then it is faid that if this conftruftion be put 
upon the ftatute, the party may be doubly charged; in the 
parifh where he lives in refpeft of his inhabitancy; and in 
that in which lie has lands, in refpeft of his occupation of 
them. But, if he find himfelf aggrieved, lie may appeal 
to the feffions; and we muft take it for granted that the 
juftices will do what is right. They are to adapt the 
charge to the fize of the property which the perfon charg¬ 
ed pofteftes : and thefe are incidental charges which fall 
on him in refpeft of that property. I remember it vvqs 
argued in a former cafe on this fubjeft that, if this con¬ 
ftruftion of the ftatute were to prevail, fome pari (lies would 
difburthen themfelves of many of their poor by apprentic¬ 
ing out their poor children to perfons living out of the pa¬ 
rifh : but the anfwer to any fuch argument is that, at the 
time when the 43 Eliz. was palled, the 13 and 14 Car. II. 
was not in exiftence. However the ground of my deci- 
fion here is, that this is one of the modes provided for the 
maintenance of the poor in this ftatute, which impofes the 
duty in refpeff of the property.—The other judges con¬ 
curred. Order of feffions confirmed. Durnf. and Eaf t 
3 v - 107. 
And by 32 Geo. III. c. 57. Where any parifii apprentice 
fhall have been difeharged for mifbeliaviour in the mafter, 
and fuch mafier fhall have been convifted of fuch offence 
on indiftment, or aftion at law, the churchwardens and 
overfeers fhall not bind any other apprentice upon fuch 
perfon; but that, when he ought or would be compellable 
to take a parifh apprentice, two juftices, on application by 
fuch churchwardens and overfeers, may order that fuch 
perfon fhall pay into the hands of fuch churchwardens 
and overfeers, any fuin not exceeding 10I. nor lefs than 
5I. for the purpofe of binding out inch child (intended to 
be bound) an apprentice, with the approbation of fuch juf¬ 
tices; and on hisTefufing payment thereof, fuch juftices 
may levy the fame by diftrefs, together with the reafonable 
expences of fuch diftrefs. Provided that any fuch mafter, 
from whom any fuch apprentice fhall be difeharged by vir¬ 
tue of 2oGeo. II. c. 19. may appeal againft fuch difeharge, 
or order for the payment of any money in confequence 
thereof as aforefaid, or in lieu of a fubfequent binding by 
virtue of this aft, to the next feffions, who fhall finally de¬ 
termine the fame, and in their diferetion allow to all par¬ 
ties their reafonable cofts.^ And no fuch diftrefs for en¬ 
forcing the payment of fuch money laft mentioned, fhall 
be taken until after the next general quarter fefiions next 
after fuch order fhall be made, in cafe the perfon ordered 
to pay the fame (hall, within feven days after notice given., 
to him of fuch order, give nc.fice to fuch churchwardens 
and overfeers or one of them, of fuch intended appeal; 
and if he fhall not appear at fuch felfions in fupport of his 
appeal, then 40s. fhall be added to the expences of diftrefs. 
before direfted to be taken and levied accordingly, f. 12. 
E. 13 Anne. Q. and Wag faff. It was moved to quafti am 
order to compel a perfon to take an apprentice, becaufe in 
the clofe of the indenture it was faid, that the mafter, at 
the end of the term, fhall give his apprentice two fuits 
of clothes. Upon debate, the court held this to be ill; for 
the juftices during the term of his apprenticefhip cannot 
order him wages, they muft only order him a maintenance 
as an apprentice, and cannot order him any thing after 
the term is ended. So the order was quaflied, Foley 205, 
1 Seff. C. 48. 
And by 32 Geo. III. c. 57. After reciting, that it fre¬ 
quently happens, that perfons are compellable by 9 and 10 
Will, to ake a greater number of parifh apprentices than 
it 
