1792.

The KING

against

cessary, it must have been strictly complied with. But this act of parliament has enabled the magistrates to draw up the conviction "in the form, or to the effect, following." And it appears by the form which is immediately subjoined, that neither the J. JEFFERIES. case nor the evidence need be stated. The question therefore is, Whether the conviction, now returned to us, be not to the effect stated in the act? I think that it is; for it contains every thing that is important in the form given, and something more. It states the information, the summons, the defendant's appearance, the examination of witnesses, but not the evidence itself: but the act says that the conviction need not contain the evidence. The want of the very thing, which the statute says need not be done, constitutes the objection. I think that the magistrate has done every thing that was required; and he has stated something more in the conviction: but that will not vitiate it.

BULLER, J.-The' words are, "I hereby convict him," &c.; which must be taken to mean "duly convicted." This conviction is according to the effect of that which is given by the

act.

GROSE, J.-The words of the convicting part go further: "I hereby convict him of the offence aforesaid; and declare and adjudge that he hath forfeited," &c. This can only be a "due conviction."

66

Dauncey, who was also against the conviction, afterwards suggested that there was another objection, in not stating the offence. That in the form given by the act a blank was left, in which the offence was to be described; but that here the justice had only stated the "offence aforesaid," and that there was no offence before mentioned in the convicting part. But

Per Curiam-"The offence aforesaid" refers to that mentioned in the information, where it is particularly set forth.

Conviction affirmed.

The KING against The Inhabitants of DITCHINGHAM.

TWO justices removed Hannah Cook from Baddingham in
Suffolk to Ditchingham in Norfolk; and the Sessions con-

firmed the order of justices, and stated this case.

H. Cook was born in Baddingham, where she lived with her father and mother, who belonged to that parish till she was seven or eight years old; when she was placed out by the parish VOL. IV. 3 D

officers

Wednesday,
June 20th.

No settlement is ing under an

gained by serv

agreement of apprenticeship not stamped.

1792.

The KING against

of DITCHING

HAM.

In pursuance of that agree

officers of Baddingham at a general parish meeting to R. Fisher, a farmer in Baddingham, under the following agreement, which was written on a leaf of the parish book, together with several The inhabitants other agreements of the same sort, namely, "August 7th, 1774: "At a general parish meeting, held at the parish of Baddingham ̧ "this day, it is agreed that R. Fisher shall take H. Cook and "maintain her after the manner of an apprentice, with washing, lodging, clothing, &c. from this day until Michaelmas 1780; “R. Fisher to have 207. with her, and at the expiration of the "said time to double clothe her. Witness my hand, R. Fisher.” This agreement was not stamped. ment the pauper went to live with Fisher at Baddingham, and served him one year. Fisher then took a farm at Ditchingham, to which he removed, and carried the pauper with him; where the pauper lived one year and a half; during which time he found her necessary clothing, lodging, washing, &c. At the expiration of the year and an half the father (at Fisher's desire) took the pauper home with him to Baddingham; where she continued till this removal; and she has done no subsequent act to gain a settlement. Fisher never paid the pauper any money as wages, but upon her quitting his service gave her a double suit of clothes according to his agreement.

[8 East. 25.]

Alderson was to have argued in support of the order of Sessions; and

Hay, contrà. But

The Court thought the point too clear to be discussed. They said, that though a modern act of parliament (a) had dispensed. with the necessity of having the deed of apprenticeship indented, it was still necessary that the binding should be by deed (b). ̧ And that the service as an apprentice could not be converted into a service as an hired servant.

(a) 31 Geo. 2. c. II.

Order of Sessions quashed (c).

(b) By 3 W.. 11. s. 8. "If any person shall be bound an apprentice by indenture, and "inhabit in any town or parish, such binding and inhabitation shall be adjudged a good set"tlement." By 31 Geo. 2. c. 11. s. I, "No person who shall be bound an apprentice by any "deed, writing, or contract, not indented, being first legally stamped, shall be liable to be " removed, &c.”

(c) See R. v. Stratton, Burr. S. C. 272; R. v. Marnam, ib. 290; R. v. All Saints in Hereford, ib. 656; and R. v. Kingsweare, ib. 839.

The

The KING against S. WHITE and Others."

1792.

Wednesday,
June 20th.

Ships are ratea-
ble to the poor in
the parish to
long; so is stock
which they be-
in trade: But
niture is not.

household fur

Neither is money, whether at

interest or not, nor the pay of officers in the

navy, or of mer.

of officers of the

merchants'

[7 T. R. 60.

6 East. 184.

8 Ibid. 46c. 15 Ibid. 206.]

SAMUEL White, merchant, Ann White, widow, John Lander, esq. Thomas Langmore, esq. William Corben, Robert Daw, and William Stanmore, inhabitants in the parish of St. James, in the town and county of Poole, appealed against a rate or assess ment made for the relief of the poor of that parish, dated the 10th day of December 1791, alleging that neither they nor either of them, had any property liable to be rated, &c. It appeared on the rate that it was a rate of 1d. in the pound on all lands, and 3d. for every 100l. of personalty. It was proved that it was chants' ships; usual in that parish to rate the inhabitants towards the relief of nor the salaries the poor for their personal property within the parish, in the customs, or of following proportion, viz. on a calculation that every 100l. clerks. of which any inhabitant was possessed did or might produce inVide R. V. Mast, 6 vol. terest to the amount of 31. per annum, such interest of 31. per cent. 156.. per annum being considered as a test of the ability of such person; and such person is charged in the sum of 1d. for each pound of such supposed interest. That it was usual also within the parish to rate all officers in the army, navy, customs, or excise, being inhabitants of the parish, according to a supposed ability arising. from their several and respective salaries. Samuel White was rated according to the proportion before stated in the sum of 13,5007. for his personal property, which consisted of certain ships or vessels employed in carrying on the Newfoundland trade from the port of Poole, in the parish of St. James, in the town and county of Poole, and monies vested on real securities, the lands on which the same were charged lying out of the parish of St. James. Ann White, widow, was assessed for her personal property within the parish in the sum of 1000l. according to the proportion before stated; such personal property consisting of principal money to that amount. John Lander was rated. for his personal property in the sum of 2007. He was collector of the customs payable at the port of Poole; he had no personal property, except his salary, payable to him as such collector, and which he received by an order of the commissioners of his Majesty's customs in the parish of St. James. Thomas Langharne was assessed for his personal property in the sum of 100%. He. 3 D 2

was

1792.

The KING

against S. WHITE

and Others.

was a captain in his Majesty's navy, and had no other personal property but his pay as captain in the navy, which was paid to his agent in London for his use, and the household goods and furniture of the house in which he lived in the parish of St. James. William Corben was rated for his personal property in the sum of 100%. He was a clerk to a merchant then an inhabitant of the parish, and had no personal property except his pay as such clerk, and which he received from James Neave, merchant in the parish. Robert Daw was rated for his personal property in the sum of 100%. He was master of a merchant vessel trading from the port of Poole to other parts, and had no personal property but his pay, which he earned as such master of a vessel, and which he received from Messrs. B. Lester and Co. in the parish of St. James. William Stansmore was rated for his personal property in the sum of 300l.; such personal property consisting of stock in trade as a shopkeeper. The Court of Quarter Sessions, on hearing the above appeal, were of opi nion that all and every of the above-named appellants were se verally and respectively liable to be rated, and therefore confirmed the rate, subject nevertheless to the opinion of this Court, whether the appellants or either of them ought to have been assessed; and if this Court should be of opinion that Samuel White ought not to be rated, then the Court of Quarter Sessions ordered and adjudged that the rate should be amended, by striking out his name; and so of the rest. And the Court of Quarter Sessions confirmed the rate in all other respects.

Bearcroft and Gibbs in support of the order of Sessions.1st, As to the case of Samuel White, rated for his personal property, partly consisting of ships trading from Poole to Newfoundland, and partly of money vested in real securities, the lands to secure which lie out of the parish.-For some time it was doubted how far personal property was rateable under the statute 43 Eliz. but that doubt has long since been got over; and it is now setttled that personal property is rateable within the words and meaning of the statute. The true criterion is the ability of the party to contribute to the maintenance of the poor. That ability is as well to be estimated by personal as his real property; although it may be more difficult to the parish to ascertain the former. But it may be objected, that where property is

move

moveable in its nature, it cannot be determined to be property
in one parish rather than in another. But it ought to be con-
sidered as being in that parish where the beneficial interest of
it is received, where it yields any such; or if it do not, then
where the property is deposited in specie. With respect to the
ships, no doubt can be entertained but that they are personal
property, yielding a beneficial interest in the parish, as well as
stock in trade; for there the profits of the voyage are received;
and that is their only home:-no other parish can claim the
right of taxing them. With respect to the real securities, the
land is a collateral pledge; the person of the debtor is the first
security; the money vested on these is still a personal debt:
this it is well known always follows the person of the creditor;
and therefore as he is domiciled in this parish, his personal
debts must also be considered as in the same parish. It is true
some difficulty might arise where the party dwells in more than
one parish in the course of the year; but that merely relates to
the quantum for which he ought to be rated in each, which,
in the case of productive personal property like this, ought to
be ascertained by the interest which is received in each parish;
and at any rate that difficulty does not occur here; because,
for aught appears to the contrary, the party never resided out
of the parish, and all the interest of the money was received in
it. Another objection which may be started, is the difficulty of
ascertaining the amount of a man's personal property, the sur-
plus of which only can be rated after payment of his debts: .
but to that it is sufficient to answer, that where the parish can
fix a party with the ostensible possession of so much personal
property, if he object to the quantum, it lies upon him to prove
the excess of value by proof of his debts in diminution of the
sum assessed. Besides, if this party be rateable at all for any
part of the property, the rate must be affirmed generally: for
the Court will not enter into the question of quantum.

Ann White's case will turn upon much of the reasoning urged in the preceding case, with respect to the criterion of ability, of which there cannot be a more certain proof than the possession of money in specie: and this case is stronger than that of the real securities; for by the finding that this money was actually in the parish, one great difficulty which attended the other case is removed; and it cannot now be disputed but that personal property, visible in the parish, as this must be allowed to be, is rateable. Nor is it any objection that it may be re

1792.

The KING against S. WHITE and Others.