he gained a settlement. The 1 Jac. 2, c. 17, s. 3, after reciting that poor persons at their first coming to a parish do commonly conceal themselves, enacts that the forty days' continuance of a person in a parish, intended to make a settlement, shall be accounted from the time of delivery of notice in writing of the house of his abode, &c. to one of the churchwardens or overseers of the poor of the parish to which he shall so remove. That enactment manifestly applies to cases where the tenement was under the value of 107., and the occupier was removable within the forty days. At that time, there was no settlement by rating; but as the object of the notice in writing was publicity, and as that object would be equally well attained when a party was rated to and paid parish rates, the statute 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, enacts, "that if any person who shall come to inhabit in any parish, shall be charged with and pay his share toward the public taxes or levies of the parish, then he shall be deemed to have a legal settlement in the same, though no such notice in writing be delivered, as was thereby before required." The manifest object of the legislature was to substitute for the notice in writing to the parish officers (which was required in cases only where a tenement was under the value of 107.) the rating by the par*227] ish officers; which rating was considered by the legislature to imply notice had by them of the party's coming. Then (the settlement under this act, by payment of parochial taxes, being given in cases only where the tenement, in respect of which they were paid, was under the value of 107.,) followed the statute 35 G. 3, c. 101, which, in s. 4, enacts, "that no person shall gain a settlement by being charged with and paying his share towards the public taxes or levies of the parish, for and on account of any tenement not being of the yearly value of 107." Now it may be conceded, that if the statute 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, had given a settlement by rating generally, the statute 35 G. 3, c. 101, s. 4, would only repeal that settlement in respect of tenements under the yearly value of 107.: but the former statute gave the settlement by rating, only where the tenement was under the value of 107. The whole of that head of settlement is therefore abolished by the last-mentioned act. [PARKE, J. According to your argument, a party might have gained a settlement if rated for a tenement of 57. per annum, but not if rated for one of 500%] The notice in writing, for which payment of rates was afterwards substituted, was required in cases only where the tenement was of less value than 107.; a settlement by payment of rates, was given, therefore, where the tenement was under that value, and in no other case. Since the statute 6 G. 4, c. 57, no question can arise as to settlement by rating, because, even if that head of settlement still subsisted at the passing of the act, all the same circumstances are now required to make a good settlement by rating, as by renting a

tenement.

DENMAN, C. J. The statute 3 & 4 W. & M. c. 11, s. 6, enacts, "that if *228] any person who shall come to inhabit in any parish shall be charged with and pay his share towards the public taxes or levies of the parish, then he shall be deemed to have a legal settlement in the same, though no such notice in writing be delivered, as is thereby before required." It makes no distinction as to the value of the property in respect of which he is to be charged. It would be too much to say that the intention of the legislature was to give a settlement by rating in those cases only where notice was before required to be given to the parish officers. The judgments which have been relied upon, in Rex v. Islington, 1 East, 283, and Rex r. Penryn, 5 M. & S. 443, were considered with due respect and attention, and overruled, in the case of Rex v. St. Pancras, 2 B. & C. 122. The order of sessions must be confirmed.

PARKE, J. I am of the same opinion. There is a time when a point, even of sessions-law, ought be considered as settled. Order of sessions confirmed.

TAUNTON and PATTESON, Js., concurred.

*The KING v. The Inhabitants of THRELKELD. Nov. 17.

Under the statute 56 G. 3, c. 139, s. 2, when an apprentice is bound from one parish into another, notice must be given to the overseers of the latter, though both be in the same county and jurisdiction of the peace.

ON appeal against an order of two justices, whereby William Thompson was removed from the township of Keswick, in the county of Cumberland, to the township of Threlkeld in the same county, the sessions confirmed the order of removal, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :—

The pauper, a poor boy of, and then legally settled in, the township of Threlkeld, in the county of Cumberland, was, in February, 1819, pursuant to an order of two justices of that county, bound apprentice by the churchwardens and overseers of the poor of Threlkeld, to E. Foster of, and residing within, the township of Keswick in the same county, by indenture for a term therein mentioned. The township of Keswick is within the parish of Crosthwaite, and is about four miles distant from the township of Threlkeld, which is in the parish of Greystoke. Each township maintains its own poor separately, and both parishes are in the same county, and within the jurisdiction of the peace of the two justices who made the order for the binding, and who afterwards signed their allowance of the indenture. No notice was given to the overseers of the poor of Keswick, or to any of them, of the intention to bind out such apprentice, nor did any of the overseers of that township attend the justices who signed their allowance of the indenture, or either of them, and admit such notice, but the binding, as well as the service and residence under *it, was in all [*230 other respects such as would confer a settlement upon the pauper in Keswick. The question for the opinion of this Court was, whether such notice was necessary under the circumstances above stated.

Sir James Scarlett and Armstrong in support of the order of sessions. Notice to the overseers of Keswick, in the township into which the pauper was to be bound, was necessary in this case by the statute 56 G. 3, c. 139, s. 2;(a) and

(a) By section 1, it is enacted, "that before any child shall be bound apprentice by the overseers of the poor of any parish, township, &c., such child shall be carried before two justices of the county, &c., wherein such parish, &c., shall be situate, who shall inquire into the propriety of binding such child apprentice to the person to whom it shall be proposed by such overseers to bind such child, and such justices shall particularly inquire and consider whether such person reside, or have his place of business within a reasonable distance from the place to which such child shall belong," &c., and shall, if they see fit, examine the father and mother, and shall make such other inquiries as are there directed; and if they, upon such inquiry, think it proper that such child should be bound apprentice to such person, such justices "shall thereupon order that the overseer of the place to which such child shall belong shall be at liberty to bind such child apprentice accordingly, which order shall be delivered to such overseer as the warrant for binding such child apprentice, and such order shall be referred to by the date thereof, and the names of the said justices in the indenture of apprenticeship of such child; and after such order shall have been made, such justices shall sign their allowance of such indenture of apprenticeship before the same shall be executed by any of the other parties thereto. Provided always, that no such child shall be bound apprentice to any person residing, or having any establishment in trade at which it is intended that such child shall be employed out of the same county, at a greater distance than forty miles," &c.

Sec. 2. "And be it further enacted, that in all cases where the residence or establishment of business of the person to whom any child shall be bound shall be within a different county or jurisdiction of the peace from that within which the place by the officers whereof such child shall be bound shall be situate, and in all other cases where the justices of the peace for the district or place within which the place by the officers whereof such child shall be bound shall be situated, and who shall sign the allowance of the indenture by which such child shall be bound, shall not have jurisdiction, every indenture by which such child shall be bound shall be allowed as well by two justices of the peace for the county or district within which the place by the officers of which such child shall be bound shall be situated, as by two justices of the peace for the county or district

*231] been followed, then, by s. 5, no settlement is gained. In Rex v. Newarkupon-Trent, 3 B. & C. 59, it was decided that such notice was necessary to be given by the overseers, where the parish into which the apprentice was to be bound was within a different jurisdiction from the binding parish, though in the same county; and the question in this case is, whether the statute applies equally where the two parishes are within the same county, and neither of them within any separate jurisdiction. The argument of Holroyd, J., in Rex v. Newark-upon-Trent, applies here; his opinion was, that the intent of the act was that notice should be given to the overseers of the parish in which *232] the apprentice is intended to serve, whether the binding were in the same or a different county. And Lord Tenterden, who differed from the other Judges, admitted that there was no reason for expressly requiring notice to the parish officers where the binding is into another county, which might not be urged with almost equal force to a binding in the same county. The overseers of a parish at one extremity of a county, are not likely to be better acquainted with the circumstances of a parish at the other extremity than with those of an adjoining parish though situate in a different county. Then, if it be consistent with the general policy of the act that notice should be given in cases where the binding is in the same county, the language of that part of the proviso in sect. 2, which requires notice to be given, is sufficiently large to comprehend cases where the two parishes are in the same county. The circumstance of that proviso being, in the printed statute, part of the second section, ought not to confine it, in point of construction, to cases mentioned in that and not in the preceding section; for, in the parliamentary rolls, the clauses are not so distinguished.

the directions of the act as to the *allowance of the indenture not having

F. Pollock and Aglionby contrà. If it be held that notice is necessary to be given in all cases to the overseers of the parish into which the apprentice is to be bound, a party will, in this case, be deprived of a settlement without any express words in the act of parliament for that purpose. In Rex v. Newark*233] upon-Trent, 3 B. & C. 80, Lord Tenterden says, "As to some of the *directions, the statute is introductive of a new law; and as a non-compliance with its directions will prevent the gaining of a settlement, I apprehend that, according to general principles, the construction of the statute must not be carried beyond the plain and obvious meaning of the language of the directions, upon any supposition that a case not within such meaning may be within the mischief intended to be remedied, or within the reason upon which the direction may be supposed to have been enacted." Section 1, which applies to every case of the binding of a parish apprentice, says nothing of notice. Section 2, is confined to certain particular bindings with reference to the local authorities of the

within which the place shall be situated wherein such child shall be intended to serve: Provided always, that no indenture shall be allowed by any justice of the peace for the county into which such child shall be bound, who shall be engaged in the same business, employment, or manufacture in which the person to whom such child shall be bound is engaged; and notice shall be given to the overseers of the poor of the parish or place in which such child shall be intended to serve an apprenticeship, before any justice of the peace for the county or district within which such parish or place shall be, shall allow such indenture, and such notice shall be proved before such justice shall sign such indenture, unless one of such overseers shall attend such justice and admit such notice."

Sec. 3. "Provided always, that the allowance of two justices of the peace for the county in which such child shall be intended to serve an apprenticeship shall be situated, shall be valid and effectual, although such place may be situated in a town or liberty within which any other justices of the peace may, in other respects, have an exclusive jurisdiction."

Sect. 5. "That no settlement shall be gained by any child who shall be bound by the officers of any parish, township, or place, by reason of such apprenticeship, unless such order shall be made, and such allowance of such indenture of apprenticeship shall be signed as hereinbefore directed."

justices of peace. It is said that the sentence beginning with the words "provided always," must apply to the whole former part of the act; but the words "that no indenture shall be allowed by any justice of the peace for the county into which such child shall be bound," plainly shew that it must be confined to cases where the binding is from one county into another, which are the cases included in the enactment immediately preceding. Then, the sentence beginning with the words "and notice shall be given to the overseers," &c., forms a second part of the same proviso. It does not begin with the words "provided also," but is connected with the preceding sentence by the conjunction and. It is therefore confined to the cases mentioned in the preceding sentence, viz., to those in which an allowance of an indenture by justices of two different jurisdictions is required.

DENMAN, C. J. The pauper gained a settlement in Keswick, unless he was prevented from so doing by the 56 G. 3, c. 139, s. 5, which enacts, "that no settlement shall be gained by any child who shall be bound by the officers of any parish, &c., by reason of such apprenticeship, unless such [*234 order shall be made, and such allowances of such indenture of apprenticeship shall be signed as hereinbefore directed." It is said here that there have not been such an order, and such allowances of the indenture signed as by the act directed, and I am of that opinion. The act of parliament contains a proviso (s. 2), that "notice shall be given to the overseers of the poor of the parish or place in which such child shall be intended to serve an apprenticeship, before any justice of the peace for the county or district within which such parish or place shall be, shall allow such indenture, and such notice shall be proved before such justice shall sign such indenture, unless one of such overseers shall attend such justice and admit such notice." Now here the sessions have found that no notice was given to the overseers of Keswick, nor did the overseers of that parish attend before the justices and admit such notice. But it is contended that notice is not necessary in a case where the binding parish, and that in which the apprentice is to be bound, are within the same county, and consequently within the jurisdiction of the same magistrates. But the object of the legislature being, as may be collected from the preamble, that every possible precaution should be taken in the binding out of the poor apprentice, it is manifest that the same necessity for notice may exist in either case. It seems to me absurd to merely passing the boundary of the county should render that necessary in one case which was not so in another. The provision that "no settlement shall be gained unless such order shall be made," &c., is for the advantage of the [*235 apprentice, because it *then becomes the interest of the officers of the binding parish to take care that the apprentice shall be well bound. With all deference to the opinion of Lord Tenterden in Rex v. Newark-upon-Trent, 3 B. & C. 59, and admitting that the different clauses of this act of parliament are not easily reconcileable with each other, I think that the proviso as to notice in the second section is not confined to cases where the two parishes are situate in different counties, but that it extends to all the cases mentioned in the first section as well as the second. There are no words to control or limit that construction; it is beneficial to the apprentice, and by adopting it we do not violate the grammatical sense of the language used by the legislature.

say that

PARKE, J. I am of the same opinion. The doctrine that an act of parlia ment is to be construed so as to favour settlements, has been long and justly exploded. There is no rule of law which calls on us to put a strict construction on this act of parliament. We must endeavour, therefore, to discover the inten tion of the legislature and carry it into effect, if the language used will warrant us in so doing; and the question is, whether, putting a proper grammatical construction on the proviso, it is confined to cases where the two parishes are situate in different counties, and consequently within the jurisdiction of different magistrates, or extends to those where the parishes are in the same county and jurisdiction. The circumstance of its being printed as part of the second section

can make no difference in the construction, because, on the parliament rolls, the acts *are not divided into sections. Now, the terms of the proviso are, "and *236] notice shall be given to the overseers of the poor of the parish in which such child shall be intended to serve an apprenticeship, before any justice of the peace for the county or district within which such parish shall be, shall allow such indenture, and such notice shall be proved before such justice shall sign such indenture." The language would be more accurate if it had been said "before he shall allow, and before he shall make the order for the binding;" but the word allow is used in the statute as common to both. The language, therefore, of the proviso is sufficiently large to include cases where the parishes are in the same, as well as where they are in different counties, and the sense and reason of the thing seem to require, also, that it should extend to cach class of cases. I thought also reason required that the first part of the proviso should be general, but as a different opinion was expressed by some of the judges on that point in Rex v. Newark-upon-Trent, 3 B. & C. 71, 84, I do not wish to give decisive opinion upon it; if, however, the first part of the proviso extends to all cases, the second undoubtedly does, and if the first does not so apply, no reason can be given why the second should not. Upon the whole, I think that the opinion delivered by Holroyd, J., in Rex v. Newark-upon-Trent, is perfectly correct, that notice was necessary to be given in this case, and that, for want of such notice, no settlement was gained in Keswick.

any

TAUNTON, J. I frankly acknowledge there are some expressions in the second section which I do not perfectly understand, but they are not *2371 material to the question before the Court. I see enough to convince me that the order of sessions is right. That part of section 2, which begins with the words "and notice shall be given," is a general enactment, applicable to all the cases embraced in the first section. As to the part which begins with "provided always that no indenture shall be allowed," &c. I am by no means satisfied that those are not words of general enactment; but, however that may be, the words respecting notice are undoubtedly general; and the sense and reason of the thing require that they should be so. There may be as much reason for requiring notice in a case where the two parishes are in the same county, as where they are in different counties. Two parishes in the same county may be at a great distance from each other, and two parishes in different counties may be adjoining each other; and it is manifest that notice may be as necessary in the one case as the other. Where, indeed, the two parishes are in different counties, notice need not be given to the overseers of the master's parish until the parties go before the magistrate having jurisdiction over that parish: but where the two parishes are in the same county, the notice must be given before the indenture be allowed. The order of sessions must be confirmed.

PATTESON, J. I am of the same opinion. I think that, by sect. 2, notice is required to be given to the overseers in all cases. The early part of sect. 2, requires that the indenture shall be allowed by the magistrates having jurisdiction over the place from which the apprentice is to be bound, as well as by the *238] magistrate of the place into which the apprentice is to be bound. If the parishes are within different jurisdictions, two sets of justices are required; if within the same, only one: but in the latter case, they are magistrates for each parish. Where there are to be two allowances, notice need not be given to the overseers of the master's parish till the parties go to the second set of justices, because they are the persons who are to make the order; but where there is only one set of justices, notice must be given to the overseers of the master's parish before the indenture be allowed by the justices making the order. I am, therefore, of opinion that the order of sessions was right. Order of sessions confirmed.