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/ssactsengr0097 and id is 1 raw text is: 378 BRADBY V. SOUTHAMPTON LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH 4 EL. & B1. 1012.
the Act now under consideration has been superseded by a later one, we shall probably
not be called upon again to construe the earlier Act: and it is not necessary to enter
into a minute criticism of its enactments, which have been clearly expounded to us
by Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Huddleston. [1012] On attending to their reasoning, it
appears to me that the first three sections apply to bindings by parish officers, and to
such bindings only. The Legislature confined the requisites of the approbation of the
justices and the insertion of the age of the child in the indenture to these bindings.
Then sect. 4 applies generally: no child under the age of eight is to be bound
apprentice to a chimney sweep. That includes all cases of binding, though the first
three sections are confined to parish bindings. Perhaps the Legislature found that
the children were treated like slaves and bound in a cruel manner by parish officers,
but were of opinion that parents might be trusted, and therefore did not extend all
the requisites to cases other than that of binding by parish officers. The enactment
in sect. 6 is decisive : for, if the first three sections applied to all bindings, it would
have been unnecessary to make a special mention of voluntary bindings in addition to
the case where apprentices had been so bound as aforesaid. Therefore, so far as
this statute went, the requisites prescribed for the protection of these unfortunate
children did not apply to the case of a child who, being above eight years old, was
bound by his parent. The Schedule was very properly brought to our notice: but
the Schedule is not an enactment, and could be used only in the case to which it was
applicable. My unfortunate experience in practical legislation has taught me that
enactments, in passing through Parliament, are often altered, while a schedule is
allowed to remain without any corresponding alteration. The decision in Rex v.
Hipswell (8 B. & C. 466) is [1013] quite in conformity with our view: and the dicta
in that case do not interfere with it, and are mere obiter dicta.
Wightman J. The argument that the requisites are applicable in cases of bindings
other than those by parish officers is founded almost entirely on the Schedule. But
sects. 1, 2 and 3 expressly refer to bindings by parish officers; and sect. 6 distinctly
shews that the Legislature supposed that there would be cases of binding distinct
from them.
Erle J. It may be that there was an intention to apply universally the requisites
prescribed for a particular class of bindings : but we are bound to give effect to all
the words which we find in the enactments.
Crompton J. I agree, for the reasons which have been given : on looking a little
further in the Schedule we find it quite inapplicable to any but parish bindings : the
apprentice is called a poor boy of the said parish.
Order of Sessions confirmed.
[1014] IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN THOMAS BRADBY ESQUIRE
AND THE LOCAL BOARD OF HEALTH FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTHAMPTON.
Thursday, May 3d, 1855. The Local Board of Health of S. made a sewer
through the land of B. B. claimed compensation. The Board maintained that
the land was not damaged, and consequently that B. was not entitled to any
compensation. B. called upon them to appoint an arbitrator to settle the amount
of compensation, under sect. 144 of The Public Health Act, 1848. The Board
refused to do so. B. appointed an arbitrator, who ultimately made an award
ex parte. On a motion to set aside this award, both parties having agreed to
waive all technical points, and be bound by the decision of the Court :-Held :
that, it appearing that the Local Board did not deny that they had made the
sewer, and were liable to make compensation, if there was any damage, the
dispute was only as to the amount of the compensation, and was therefore under
the Act to be settled by arbitration; and that arbitrators, if of opinion that
there was no'damage, might award that the amount of compensation was nothing.
[S. C. 3 C. L. R. 771; 24 L. J. Q. B. 239; 1 Jur. N. S. 778; 3 W. R. 413. Referred
to, Rhodes v. Airedale Drainage Commissioners, 1876, 1 C. P. D. 395, 402. Commented
on, Brierly Hill Local Board v. Pearsall, 1884, 9 App. Cas. 595.]
Petersdoff, in last Term, on behalf of The Local Board of Health of Southampton,
obtained a rule Nisi to set aside the award of Joseph Hill in this Watter.
From the affidavits, on both sides, it appeared that The Local Board of Health](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0097&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)