« PreviousContinue »
THE POOR LAWS, THE CRIMINAL LAW,
AND OTHER SUBJECTS
CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH
The Duties and Office of Magistrates,
DECIDED PRINCIPALLY IN
THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND THE COURT FOR
MICHAELMAS TERM 1853, TO TRINITY TERM 1854,
HENRY JOHN HODGSON, Esq.,
COLLEY HARMAN SCOTLAND, ESQ. AND FRANCIS RUSSELL, Esq.
FORMING PART III. OF
NEW SERIES, VOL. XXIII.
THE LAW JOURNAL REPORTS.
Printed by James Holmes, 4, Took's Court, Chancery Lane.
PUBLISHED BY EDWARD BRET INCE, 5, QUALITY COURT, CHANCERY LANE.
REPORTS OF CASES
CHIEFLY CONNECTED WITH
THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES.
VOL. XXIII. (NEW SERIES), COMMENCING WITH
MICHAELMAS TERM, 17 VICTORIÆ.
Certain rules issued by the Poor Law Commissioners for regulating the binding of parish apprentices, provided, by article 5, that no person above the age of fourteen should be bound without his consent, and no child under sixteen should be bound without the consent of the father, or (if he was dead) of the mother of such child: provided that where such parent should be transported, &c. such consent should be dispensed with. Article 15. provided, that the indenture should be executed in duplicate by the master and guardians, and should not be valid unless signed by the apprentice without assistance, and that the consent of the parent when requisite should be testified by his signing the indenture; and where such consent was dispensed with under article 5, the cause of such dispensation should be stated at the foot of the indenture. They also required that the Justices who allowed the binding should certify at the foot of the indenture that they NEW SERIES, XXIII.-MAG. Cas.
had examined and ascertained that these rules had been complied with. An indenture binding a poor child purported on its face to be signed by the apprentice "without aid or assistance," and there was a certificate of a Magistrate at the foot, as required by the above rules. There was nothing on the face of the indenture, nor was any evidence adduced, to shew whether the indenture had been executed in duplicate, or the apprentice or his parents had consented to the binding, nor was any cause of such consent being dispensed with stated in the indenture:- Held, that these regulations were merely directory, and that the omission to comply with them (if established) would not affect the validity of the indenture; and that the certificate of the Magistrate afforded a presumption that the rules had been properly complied with.
Upon an appeal against an order, dated the 11th of February 1853, for the removal of James Spinks, therein stated to be of the age of fifteen years, and an orphan, from the parish of St. George the Martyr, in the borough of Southwark, in the county of Surrey, to the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, Bermondsey, in the said county, the Quarter Sessions confirmed the said order,