HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0042 and id is 1 raw text is: THE KING V. STOWMARKET
lawfully in the Statute of King William were not to be narrowed in its construc-
tion to a contract in the terms of it lawful: and if the contract were lawful in
its form, it might have afforded an argument whether the party serving under it
could be disabled from gaining a settlement under it, by reason of his having before
contracted an engagement with another person inconsistent with it. But a variety
of cases have occurred which have decided the question in the case of an apprentice :
and this, not on the ground of its being an excepted case, or as standing upon
any occult efficacy in the indenture of apprenticeship; but upon the broad principle
that one, who has contracted a relation which disables him from serving any other
without the consent of his first master, is not sui juris, and cannot lawfully bind
himself to serve such second master, so as to gain a settlement by serving for a
year under such second contract. In reason and principle it cannot make any
difference whether he be originally bound by a contract of apprenticeship, or by
any other contract equally obligatory upon him, which disables him from binding
himself to serve a second master. The objection is, that he cannot give the master
a control over his service for the whole period which the master stipulates for and
has a right to require by the contract. The King's officers might at any time have
reclaimed him, and taken him out of the service in which he was engaged ; he cannot
therefore be said to have been lawfully hired into it. The remedy which the master
might in that case have had against him is another question : and the very [210] want
of power to bind himself, as he assumed, without authority, to do, might have
founded a cause of action against him by the master. But a soldier is at least as
much bound to the service of the King, as an apprentice is to that of his master:
and nothing is to be inferred from the measured language of the Court in the case
of an apprentice, in not laying down the principle broader than the matter in judg-
ment required : but nothing was said by the Court in any of the cases intimating an
opinion that the rule there laid down was confined to the single case of an apprentice ;
and therefore we must look to the reason and principle of those decisions when we are
called upon to apply the rule to similar cases.
Grose J. The words of the statute have been considered, and a construction put
upon them in the instance of an apprentice; and I cannot distinguish this case in
principle from that.
Lawrence J. The decisions referred to have concluded the present question, if
they were not made upon any ground peculiar to the case of an apprentice : but,
as I understand them, they proceeded upon the ground that an apprentice was not
sui juris, and could not therefore subject himself to the control of a second master
for a whole year under a contract of hiring. And that principle will equally govern
the present case.
Le Blanc J. The prior cases have decided this. The principle of them is, that if
the party cannot make such a contract for his service, of which the master may avail
himself for the whole year according to the contract, no settlement can be gained
under it.
Orders confirmed.
[211] THE KING against THE INHABITANTS OF STOWMARKET. Wednesday, Jan.
27th, 1808. A poor boy sent out of the house of industry at 14-years of age to
the parish officers, and by them allotted to a parishioner, who handed him over
to another person, by whom the boy was told that he was to stay with him a
year, and should have clothes, &c. ; to which the boy made no objection; con-
ceiving himself obliged to accept the service ; but made no agreement for wages
or concerning the nature or duration of his service, nor was consulted upon the
subject; does not gain a settlement by serving under this supposed obligation
for a year; for neither did he consider himself, nor was he considered by the
other parties, as a free agent; and such only can contract, or adopt a contract
made by others.
John Edward King,. a pauper, and his wife were removed by an order of two
justices from South Lopham in Norfolk to Stowmarket in Suffolk. The sessions, on
appeal, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case :
J. E. King, the pauper, being settled by birth in Stowmarket, was in the year
1801 a poor boy, at the age of fourteen, in the house of industry for the poor of the
K. B. xxxii.-18*
553
9 EMST, 210.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0042&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)