APPRENTICE. 
his own ufe, or for the life of his family, without felling 
any for lucre and gain, lie may lawfully do it ; but he can¬ 
not retain an apprentice therein; but he may hire one to 
be his fervant, who is fkilful in that trade or occupation. 
8 Co. 129. In like manner, a perfon brought up to the 
trade may take a partner, who hath not ferved anappren- 
ticefhip to the trade, provided the partner (hare only in 
the profits or lofs of the bufinefs, and do not actually ex- 
ercife the trade. As in the cafe of Reynard and Chafe , 
M. 30 Geo. II. An aftion of debt was brought agatnft 
Chafe, for a penalty on the aft, for exercifing the trade 
of a brewer, without having ferved an apprenticefliip. On 
a f'pecial verdift, it was hated, that the defendant Chafe 
and one Coxe were partners in the trade; that the trade 
was carried on, and had been for four years carried on, in 
their joint names’; that Coxe did ferve an apprenticefliip 
to the trade, but Chafe never did ; and that Coxe is a 
working brewer, and was paid a falary for his labour, 
which falary was always deducted, and" allowed to him, 
previous to a divilion of the profits ; and the entries at the 
excife-office were in their joint names : but that the de¬ 
fendant John Chafe never exercifed the trade himfelf, 
(which was wholly managed and carried on by Coxe ;) but 
only fhared the profits, and flood the rifques of the part- 
nerfhip. The queflion was, whether the defendant John 
Chafe is within the aft, upon this fpecial finding? By 
L. Mansfield, Ch. J. The defendant is to Pnare the profits 
with Coxe in moieties; and is liable to the debts of the 
partnerfhip : but it is exprefsly found, that, during all the 
time charged, he never afted in or exercifed the trade. 
He was not, by the terms of his agreement, to aft in the 
trade. The other partner was to do the whole, and had 
a particular lalary on that account. It is not found, that 
either Coxe, or any fervant under him, was fet to work 
by Chafe ; nor that Chafe did any aft whatever of exer¬ 
cifing tire trade ; lie was only concerned in the profits. 
Now though this may be, to fome purpofes, exercifing a 
trade, in refpeft of third perfons who deal with the part¬ 
nerfhip as creditors, and within the meaning of th^latutes 
■concerning bankrupts; yet the prefent queflion * whe¬ 
ther it be exercifing a trade contrary to this aft ? In the 
argument of this caufe it hath been well obferved, that 
this is a penal law ; that it is in reflraint of natural right; 
that it is contrary to the general right given by the com¬ 
mon law of this kingdom. To which I will add, that the 
policy on-which the aft was made, is, from experience, 
become doubtful. Bad and unfkilful workmen are rarely 
profecuted. This aft was made early in the reign of queen 
Elizabeth. Afterwards, when the great number of manu- 
fafturers, who took refuge in England from the duke of 
Alva’s perfecution, had brought trade and commerce with 
them, and enlarged our notions ; the reflraint introduced 
by this law was thought unfavourable, and the judges by a 
liberal interpretation have extended the qualifications for 
exercifing the trade much beyond the letter of it, and con¬ 
fined the penalty and prohibition to cafes precifely within 
the exprefs letter. Let 11s confider v\ liether the prefent 
cafe be within the letter, or even the meaning, of this aft. 
The general policy of the aft was, to have trades carried 
on by perfons who had (kill in them. Now here, the 
perf'onal fkill of the defendant makes no real difference in 
the cafe. For the perfon who is fkilful afts every thing, 
and receives no direction from this man : he neither did, 
nor was to interfere. In many confiderable undertakings, 
it is abfolutely neceffary to take in perfons as partners, to 
fhare the profits and rifque the lofs. And the general 
ufage and practice of mankind ought to have weight, in 
determinations of this fort, affecting trade and commerce, 
and the manner of carrying them on. It is notorious that 
many partnerfliips are entered into upon the foundation of 
one partner contributing induftry and fkill, and the other 
money. Many great breweries and other trades have been 
carried on for the benefit of infants and refiduary legatees, 
under the direftion of the court of chancery : now, if the 
plaintiff ’s conff ruction was to hold, the whole direftion and 
851 
decree of the court of chancery was contrary to law, and 
to an exprefs aft of parliament. So it is likewif'e practifed 
in other great trades. The late Mr. Child direfted his 
bufinefs of a banker to be carried on for the benefit of his 
children and other perfons. Many other inffauces might 
be mentioned. It would introduce the utmoft confufion m 
affairs of trade and commerce, if this conftruftion fhould 
prevail. On the other hand, I fee no inconvenience. It 
is exaftly the fame thing as to trade, in every particular, 
whether this partner has or has not ferved an apprentice¬ 
fliip. Therefore I think the defendant not liable to the 
penalty of the flatute. The other three juftices concurred. 
And judgment was given for the defendant. Bur. Mansf. 2. 
Any craft, myflery, or occupation. T. 3 Geo. III. French 
and Adams. An action of debt was brought upon the fla¬ 
tute again!! the defendant for exercifing tire trade of a car¬ 
penter, iie not having ferved an apprenticefliip to that trade. 
It appeared, that the defendant had worked or ferved as 
a fervant for feven years in the trade of a glazier, and for 
feme time afterwards exercifed that trade as a matter; that 
afterwards he exercifed the trade of a carpenter for the 
fpace of nine years, and it was proved that he well under- 
ftood that trade. It was objected, that the defendant being 
originally bred up to the trade of a glazier, he could nor 
follow two trades, both glazier and carpenter ; and whether 
lie could or not, was the queflion reierved for the confi- 
deration of the court. By the court: All the judges of 
England at a meeting lately refolved, that, if any man as 
a mafter had exercifed and followed any trade as a matter 
without interruption or impediment for the term of feven 
years, he was not liable to be fued or profecuted on the 
flatute of 3 F.liz. alfo, it a man hath followed two or more 
different trades for the term of feven years or more, he 
fhall not be liable to be profecuted on this flatute. There 
is no law again!! one man’s following feveral trades at this 
day. There was an ancient flatute, (37 Edw. III. c. 6.) 
that artificers or handicraftfmen fhould ufe but one myf- 
tery, and that none fhouldaife any myftery but that which 
lie had before that time chofen and tiled. But this re¬ 
flraint of trade and traffic was immediately found prejudi¬ 
cial to the public, and therefore at the next parliament it 
was enacted, that all people fhould be as free as they were 
at any time before the faid ordinance. And L. Coke ob¬ 
serves, that afts of parliament made again!! the freedom of 
trade never live long. Without the leal! doubt, a man 
may follow twenty trades, if he has worked at or followed 
each trade feven years. Mr. Harrifon of Red-lion-fquare 
ferved an apprenticefliip to the trade of a carpenter ; but 
for twenty-fix years pall he has been a watchmaker ; and, 
though lie never ferved as an apprentice to the-trade of a 
watchmaker, is the belt maker of time-pieces in the world, 
and the parliament lias given him a large fum of money to¬ 
wards finding out the longitude by the help of his watches 
or time-meafurers : and fhall this man be hindered from 
making watches and exercifing the trade of a carpenter alfo 
if he pleafes ? And by the w hole court in the prefent cafe, 
judgment was given for the defendant. 2 Wifoh , 168. 
Now ifed. That is, 011 the 12th of Jan. 1362, when 
that parliament began ; and this reflraint fhall not extend 
any further than the words do exprefsly direct, and there¬ 
fore not to new arts and myflenes lince invented. 1 Roll. 
Rep. 10. 1 Vcntr. 326, 346. 
-Within the realm of England and Wales. M. 1 Geo. II. K. 
and Lifer. Indictment for thing the trade of a dry-falter, 
being a craft, myftery, or occupation, ufed in this kingdom 
on the 12th day of Jan. in the 5th year of F.liz. Which 
the court held to be ill; for that the words in this kingdom 
tie down the indictment to the kingdom of Great Britain, 
as it is at tlfis day ; whereas it fhould have been in England 
or in England and Wales. 2 Seff. C. 160. Sir. 788. 
FI. 3 Geo. II. K. and Monro. It was moved to quafii an 
indictment for exercifing the trade of a baker, the defen¬ 
dant not having-ferved a legal apprenticefliip. The ex¬ 
ception was, the trade was not laid to be ui'ed within the 
realm of England and Wales at the time, of the aft. But 
tiie 
