cafe. For this rule must be difcharged, in whatever view it is confidered. Even if this had been a foreign bill of exchange, there would have been no pretence for the demand which the Plaintiff made. It was properly faid by one of the witneffes, that the fees of the notary are for noting and demanding. In making a proteft there are three things to be done; the noting, demanding, and drawing-up the proteft. The noting is unknown in the law, as diftinguished from the protest; it is merely a preliminary ftep to the proteft, and has grown into practice within thefe few years. But, in this cafe, the Notary's Clerk made a note on the bill merely for his own convenience; only to fave himself trouble, in the fame manner as Bankers' Clerks frequently write on the bill, "received the contents," even before they go out of ther mafter's office; and which words are afterwards ftruck out, if the bill be not paid. The next and the material part, is the making of the demand: the party, making the demand, must have authority to receive the money; and, in cafe that is refufed, the drawing-up of the protest is mere matter of form; but if the perfon, on whom the demand is made, be ready to pay the amount of the bill, he does all that the law requires of him. Therefore, if this had been the cafe of a foreign bill of exchange, the Defendant would not have been liable to pay the fees of protesting, because he was ready to pay when the demand was made. It is material too to confider by whom the demand was made in this cafe; I am not fatisfied that it was a proper demand, for it was only made by the Banker's Clerk. The demand of a foreign bill must be made by a Notary Public; to whom credit is given, because he is a public officer. However, in this cafe, there could be no proteft at all: it is clear that, at common law, no protest was required on an inland bill of exchange; it is only made under the statute of William, which does not apply to this cafe, for the reasons already given.

Rule discharged.

REX v. the Inhabitants of ST. PETROX, in DARMOUTH.

CASE.

John Hambling, the father of the pauper's husband John Hambling deceased, having been told by the parish-officers of Townstall, that they would give him 20s. to bind out his fon an apprentice if he would find a place for him, did, in July 1768, agree with Mary Hayne, widow, who occupied a farm in Slapton, to bind his fon John Hambling, deceased, then aged about eight years, an apprentice to Richard Hayne, fon of Mary Hayne, who was then between the age of 14 and 15, and was then refident in his mother's house as a part of her family, and had no habitation of business of his own. When this agreement was made between Hambling the father and Mary Hayne, they alfo agreed that he, Hambling, should pay to Mary Hayne 20s. as a confideration for fuch apprenticeship; but it did not appear that Mary Hayne knew that any promife was made by the overfeers of Townftall to Hambling, with refpe&t to the advancing of any money to him for this purpose. Hambling, the father, afterwards received 20s. from the churchwardens and overfeers of Townstall, 5s. of which he paid to Mary Hayne, and promifed to pay her the reft at 55. a time, but applied the remaining 15. to his own ufe. It appeared by the indenture of apprenticeship, dated 21st July, 1768, that John Hambling, the fon, of his own free will, and with the confent of his father, voluntarily bound himfelf apprentice to Richard Hayne, of Slapton, till he should attain the age of 21, to learn the art of husbandry. This indenture was figned by Hambling the father, and Hambling the fon, and by Richard Hayne; and was ftamped with an half-crown ftamp, but had no ftamp thereon for the confi deration money. Some time in April, previous to the date of the indenture, J. Hambling, the father, received from the parish of Townftall five fhillings as need-money, he having applied for relief. J. Hambling, the fon, lived in Mary Hayne's houfe in Slapton till he was 20 years old. Two Juftices removed Anne Hambling, widow of the faid John Hambling, the fon, from St. Petrox to Slapton.

The

The Seffions quashed the order, and ftated the cafe abovementioned; and it was now contended, in fupport of the Order of Seffions, that the indenture was void, because the ftamp-duty had not been paid upon the confideration-money of 205.

LORD KENYON, Ch. J.-It has been very properly admitted that this indenture of apprenticeship was not abfolutely void, on account of the infancy of the parties, but only voidable, and that, unless there be fome other objection, the pauper is entitled to the benefit of the apprenticeship. But it has been contended that it is void on another ground, namely, for the want of an additional ftamp for the confideration-money of 20s. given with the apprentice, and that this does not come within the provifo, in the ftatute of 8 Anne, cap. 9, § 35, 36, relative to fums given with apprentices at the public charge of any parish, or by or out of any public charity. But I think there is no foundation for the argument. We must confider this to be a fair binding to the fon, because the Seffions have not stated that it was fraudulent. Then if it were, as it profeffed to be, a binding to the fon, and not colourably to the mother, the statute requires no duty for the confideration money, even though the money were not raifed at the charge of the parish. The Act of Parliament, taking it altogether, undoubtedly impofes the duty on money paid to the master or mistress only; for it fays, "that every master, or mistress, to or with whom, or to whofe ufe, any fum fball be given, paid, fecured, or contracted, for or in refpect of any fuch apprentice, &c." Now here the mafter did not receive the money which was given with the apprentice, but for reasons (not here stated) his mother received it; and it is not stated that she received it as agent for her fon. But even fuppofing that the mafter had received or contracted for the confideration-money, it was not fubje&t to the duty imposed by the statute of Anne, because it was money raised at the common and public charge of the parish of Townftall, and as fuch it comes within the provifo in that Act. It was affumed, in argument, as a propofition that there can be no binding of any parifh apprentice within the meaning of this provifo, unless it be a compulsory binding under the 43 of Elizabeth, with the concurrence of two magiftrates. But that cannot be the conftruction of that ftatute; for one of the purposes of raising rates for the relief of the poor was to put out children apprentices, at the expence of the parish, That is not reftrained to the cafe of a compulfory binding, which is under a fubfequent clause. And the object of that

A&

Act is as well answered by a binding with the confent of the parents as by a compulfory binding without their interference. All that is required is, that the binding should be obligatory on the children. If the parents discharge their duty to the children, then there is no neceffity for the interference of the magiftrates and parish officers: but if the parents neglect their duty, or are not able to procure masters, then the parish officers are bound to interpofe, and they stand in loco parentum. Then in this cafe the confideration money was advanced by the parish officers; it came out of a fund excepted by the ftatute of Anne. Therefore on both the points, first, that there was no money for which any duty was payable under any circumstances, or, fecondly, (if there were) that it was excepted in this cafe, as the money was paid at the public charge of the parish, I am of opinion, that the pauper gained a fettlement in Slapton, by ferving under this indenture, and confequently that the order of feffions fhould be quafhed.

ASHHURST, J.-It is not neceffary to go into the first objection, that the money was paid to the mafter of the apprentice, and not to his mother, because the other objection is decifive, namely, that this money was paid out of the public fund of the parish. Though the Legiflature, in paffing the ftatute of Elizabeth, might have chiefly provided for the cafe of a compulfory binding, yet it cannot be supposed that that act does not extend to voluntary bindings at the public charge of the parish. This was a binding at the public expence of the parish, and therefore comes within the exception in the ftatute of Anne.

Order of Seffions quashed,

1

REX

REX v. the Inhabitants of COLLINGBOURN DUCIS.

CASE.

The pauper was born in Collingbourn Kingston, when his father and mother were refiding there under a certificate from Froxfield. At the age of 19 he was hired for a year to ferve T. Childs of Buckholt Farm, as a carter, which he served accordingly. Buckholt Farm is extraparochial; is not a township or vill; and has no parish officers. After the pauper had ferved the year at Buckholt, he returned to Collingbourn Kingston, and then, being unmarried, under age, and not having done any act to gain a fettlement in his own right further than as aforefaid, he was hired to, and ferved, S. Andrews of that parish for a year. The Court of Seffions, being of opinion that the pauper was not emancipated, and that the certificate was not difcharged fo as to enable him to gain a fettlement in Collingbourn Kingston by hiring and fervice, quashed the order of the two justices, removing him from Collingbourn Ducis to Collingbourn Kingston.

LORD KENYON, Ch. J.-It is extremely clear that, if the pauper had ferved a year under a yearly hiring in Collingbourn Kingston, before he went to Buckholt, he could not thereby have gained a fettlement in that parish, while the certificate was in force, on account of the ftatute of William. It is equally clear, that, if Buckholt had not been an extraparochial place, his fervice under the hiring ftated in the cafe would have discharged him from the protection of the certificate in Collingbourn Kingston; because then the certifi cate, which afferted that he was fettled in Froxfield, would not have been true in fact, inafmuch as it would in that cafe have been fuperfeded by a fubfequent settlement. But Buckholt not being a parish, wherein a fettlement could be gained, the question is, Whether by any, and what means, the certificate as to this pauper was difcharged? In cafes of this kind, where the decifions of this Court are to guide the judgments of the magiftrates, it is of great importance that they should be confiftent. Now, I am not able to distinguish this cafe from the principle laid down in R. v. Witton cum Twam