The King against Clerke
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Date | 01 January 1794 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 884
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH
case 190. the king against clerke. Overseers may compel a master to take and provide for a parish apprentice. Order of sessions quashed, because the justices cannot force a man to take an apprentice against his will; and an order of sessions to that purpose is void. And here was remembered the case of The King v. Pyne (a) in Michaelmas term, in the twenty-ninth year of Charles the Second, in the King's Bench, where an indictment against Pyne for refusing to take an apprentice put on him by the parish was quashed ; the Court being then of opinion, that the justices of peace cannot force a man to take an apprentice against his will; (though if he do take him the statute will be binding both upon the master and the servant, and his parents) except the party do personally occupy husbandry, and then he is compellable (6). (c) 4 Co. 70. 1 Ander. 285. Hughes's Ent. 395. (d) Ventris reports, that after many solemn arguments it was resolved in Hilary term, 1 Jac. 2, by Herbert Chief Justice, Holloway and Wright Justices, against the opinion of Wythens Justice, that the fine was an extinguishment of the power, and the deed came too late. S. C. 1 Vent. 371. Wythens Justice held that the fine and deed should, in favour of common assurances, be considered as a conveyance. S. C. Comb. 12. But judgment was given for the defendant, S. C. Skin. 187. A writ of error, however, was brought in the Exchequer Chamber, and in Hilary term, 3 & 4 Jac. 2, this judgment was reversed by six Judges against two, S. C. Garth. 22 to 25, and resolved that the fine and deed (though subsequent) was but as one conveyance, and therefore were a good execution of the power, a good revocation of the former uses, and a good declaration of the new ones. S. C. cited in Tornlinson v. Dighton, 1 Peer. Wms. 169. But see Earl of Darlington v. Pultney, Cowp. 260, that if the specific nature of the instrument by which the power is to be executed be expressly mentioned in the instrument which creates the power, it cannot be carried into effect by any other mode of conveyance. (a) 3 Keb. 516, 628, 636, 686, 854. (4) See 3 Keb. 854. 3 Mod. 271. Raym. 66, 177. 1 Sid. 99 & 411. Cart. 116, and 1 Lev. 84, accordant. But note, the latter resolutions in 1 Salk. 67. 1 Show. 76, &c. are contra. And the statute 8 & 9 Will. 3, c. 30, says expressly, "That where any poor children shall be appointed to be bound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herring against Browne
...572. (b) Cromwell v. Andrews, 2 Co. 69. Moor, 471. Jenk. 252. Ander. 69. Savil, 115. Co. Lit. 103. 884 EASTER TERM, 34 OAK. 2. IN B. R. 2 SHOW. K. B. 193. The Lord Chief Justice. Suppose that after the fine there had been an attainder of treason, and after that a deed : suppose a man levies......
-
Aldridge v Drake
...English Reports Citation: 89 E.R. 1061 IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCHAldridge against Drake 2 SHOW. K. B. 193. MICHAELMAS TERM, 2 JAC. 2. IN B. R. 1061 [493] case 450. aldridge against drake. Easter Term, 2 Jac. 2, Roll 163. To an action of false imprisonment for thirteen years, if the defen......