1817 Indenture
between
Robert Bartlett of Twillingate
and
John Colborne of Twillingate, Merchant

Source: Reports of c and Writs of Error from that Court to the Exchequer Chamber in Hilary Term. 1837

This indenture, made 1st of January, 1817, between Robert Bartlett, late of Pendomer in the county of Somerset, England, but now of Twillingate in the island of Newfoundland, labourer, of the one part, and John Colborne, late of Sturminster Newton, in the county of Dorset, England, but now of Twillingate aforesaid, merchant, of the other part, witnesseth, that the said R.B., of his own free will, hath put, placed, and bound himself apprentice, as a sailor, to the said J.C., from the day of the date hereof, for the term of three years; and the said R.B. doth covenant, promise, and agree, to and with the said J.C., his executors, administrators, and assigns, that he the said R. B. shall and will, from the day of the date hereof, for the term aforesaid, serve the said J.C., his executors, &c., on board the brig Dorset, or any other vessel which the said J.C., his executors, &c., shall or may have during the term aforesaid, diligently attending to the concerns of his said master, doing no damage, &c., nor knowingly suffer the same, &c., but shall and will, in all respects, acquit and demean himself as an honest apprentice ought to do. In consideration whereof, he the said J.C. doth hereby covenant, promise and agree, to and with the said R.B., that he, the said J.C., his executors, &c., shall and will accept and take the said R.B. as his apprentice, and shall and will, during the term aforesaid, at this proper costs and charges, find and provide the said R.B. with meat, drink, and unfurnished lodging, and also with physic and surgery, if wanted: And also shall and will pay unto the said R.B., his executors, administrators, or assigns, at the expiration of the said term, the sum of 30£.

Source: Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of King's Bench, Vol I, 1837:
The King v. Inhabitants of Closworth.
Wednesday, January 25th.

A settlement may be gained by apprenticeship under indentures made in Newfoundland, the pauper being of full age at the time of binding himself.

UPON an appeal against an order by two justices made against an order for the removal of Robert Bartlett and Elizabeth his wife, and Mary Ann and Sarah, the children of the said Robert Bartlett by a former wife, and Elizabeth, Samuel and William, the children of the said Elizabeth Bartlett by Samuel Hord her former husband, and John her illegitimate child, from the parish of Closworth to the parish of Pendomer. The Court of Quarter Sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of the Court of K. B. upon the following case, which, after setting out the order of removal, proceeded to state, that previous to the year 1817, the pauper, Robert Bartlett, an Englishman, being then of age, was at Twillingate in Newfoundland, in the employ of Messrs. Colbourne & Son, of Sturminster Newton, in Dorsetshire, who had a mercantile establishment in Newfoundland, and at Poole in Dorsetshire, and were Newfoundland merchants. John Colbourne, the son, occasionally resided in each place, and the home of Colbourne's vessel, on board of which the pauper served, was the port of Poole. In the beginning of the year 1817, the pauper bound himself to Mr. John Colbourne by an indenture of apprenticeship for three years, to serve as an apprentice on board any vessel Mr. Colbourne might have. The instrument was not executed in England, but in Newfoundland, and was signed and sealed by the pauper and his master, then residing in Newfoundland. It was not stamped at the time of its execution, nor within two months afterwards; but at the hearing of the appeal was given in evidence, bearing an English one £ stamp, and a receipt for the Penalty indorsed. No evidence was given of the law of Newfoundland relating to such instruments, but it was admitted - " that legal indentures executed in Newfoundland, do not, according to the laws of that island, require a stamp, in order to render them valid there."

The pauper, Robert Bartlett, served under the above instrument for more than forty days in the parish of Saint James, in Poole, in the county of Dorset. It was admitted, and the sessions adjudged, that the instrument, if executed in England duly stamped, was a valid indenture of apprenticeship. And the question is, whether the binding was a valid one, so as to confer a settlement by service under it in England (a). If the above instrument be sufficient to confer a settlement, the order is to be quashed altogether.

Source: Cases Argued and Determined relating to The Poor Laws to Points in Criminal Law. Supplement to The Law Journal Reports For 1837
1837. Jan. 25.

THE KING V. THE INHABITANTS OF CLOSWORTH.
Settlement by Foreign Apprenticeship

Evidence.

An indenture of apprenticeship was made in Newfoundland, by an English sailor, who thereby agreed to serve on board his master's ship: -Held, that a settlement was gained by a service and inhabitancy in England for forty days under that indenture.

Held also, that the party relying on the indenture, was not bound to prove that it was valid by the law of Newfoundland.

This was an appeal against an order of two Justices of the county of Somerset, for the removal of R. Bartlett and Elizabeth his wife, and three children of said R. B. by a former wife, and three children of said Elizabeth by a former husband, and one illegitimate child, from the parish of Closworth to the parish of Pendomer; and the Court of Quarter Sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on a CASE, which set out the order which adjudged the settlement of the pauper, his wife, and his children, to be in Closworth, and then stated that the pauper and his wife had married after the 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76, and that the husband was liable to maintain the other children, and ordered that all should be removed to Closworth. The case then stated the circumstances of the settlement to be these: -previously to the year 1817, the pauper R. B, an Englishman, being then of age, was at Twillingate, in Newfoundland, in the employ of Messrs. Colbourne & Son, of Sturminster Newton, in Dorsetshire, who had a mercantile establishment in Newfoundland, and at Poole, in Dorsetshire, and were Newfoundland merchants. John Colbourne, the son, occasionally resided in each place, and the home of Colbourne's vessel, on board of which the pauper served, was the port of Poole. In the beginning of the year 1817, the pauper bound himself to Mr. J. C, by an instrument which was set out in the case. (The pauper bound himself thereby to serve his master as a sailor for three years, and it contained the usual covenants in apprentice deeds.)

The instrument was not executed in England, but in Newfoundland, and signed and sealed by the pauper and his master, then residing in Newfoundland. It was not stamped at the time of its execution, nor within two months afterwards; but, at the hearing of the appeal, was given in evidence with an English 1£ stamp, and a receipt for the penalty indorsed. No evidence of the law of Newfoundland, relating to such instruments, was given; but it was admitted, that legal indentures executed in Newfoundland do not, according to the laws of that island, require a stamp to render them valid there. The pauper inhabited and served under the above instrument for more than forty days in the parish of St. James, in Poole. It was admitted, and the Sessions adjudged that the instrument, if executed in England, duly stamped, was a valid indenture of apprenticeship; and the question was, whether the binding was a valid one, so as to confer a settlement by service under it in England.

Another question was, whether the children of E. B, by her former husband, and her illegitimate child, were removable under the said order (1).

Sir F. Pollock, in support of the order of Sessions, was stopped by the Court.

Kinglake, contra.-The indenture in this case is not proved to have been a valid indenture, according to the law of Newfoundland, and if not, the pauper could not gain a settlement by a residence under it. Newfoundland is a foreign country, and the rule of law is, that contracts entered into abroad, even by subjects of this country, must be construed according to the law of the country where made, and will be of no avail here, unless valid in such country. It was incumbent, therefore, upon the appellants to prove, that by the law of Newfoundland, this indenture was valid …….. But if these statutes do apply to such an indenture as the present, at least it is requisite that it should conform to the requisites of them, which it does not. It is not therefore shewn that this apprenticeship was a valid contract where made; and if it were, yet a foreign indenture of apprenticeship will not confer a settlement in England.

Lord Denman, C.J.-It appears to me, that a good settlement has been gained, in this case, by the service under the indenture. ……... With respect to the law of Newfoundland, it is said, that there is nothing here to shew that these indentures would be lawful there. It is not necessary that the lawfulness of this contract should be distinctly stated; for a contract of teaching and learning is prima facie lawful, and it is here expressly found, that the apprentice was of age when he entered into the contract. I do not see that there is any other difficulty in the case. When this statute was repealed as to all that affects indentures made under it, it followed that all indentures must be good as between third parties, if they would have been good before its repeal, and the cases I have referred to, shew that these indentures would have been valid for this purpose, even under that statute itself. I am, therefore, of opinion, that a settlement has been gained in this case.

Williams, J.-I am entirely of the same opinion. It appears clearly on the face of the instrument, that it created the relation of master and apprentice between these parties, and was a contract for teaching and learning. It was an indenture of apprenticeship in the proper sense of the term. We have no evidence that the law in Newfoundland would require anything different from what has been done here. It has been argued, that nothing can be valid in England as a contract, but that which is in compliance with the statutes in force here. That doctrine, however, has not been strictly applied even to English contracts of apprenticeship made under the authority of those very statutes; and I cannot think that it should be strictly applied here. I think that the pauper gained a settlement.

Coleridge, J.-I am of the same opinion. Taking the two statutes, 13 and 14 Car. 2, and 13 W. & M. together, I think that there must be one mode of settlement by binding and service. It is said, that the settlement is not made out here, as it is not proved that this is a contract of apprenticeship shewn to be valid as such in a foreign country. That is true. But this is said to be a written contract for teaching and learning. We have a right to look into the instrument, and see whether the language used is such as to import that it is a contract of that nature. Now the instrument, upon the face of it, does appear to be such a contract. But then it is said, that as it was made in a foreign country, it does not fall within the statutes of apprenticeship; and the statute of Elizabeth is referred to, for the purpose of shewing that our law cannot recognize any but such as are made within the limits of this country. It seems to me, that that statute has no application to the present contract, but refers only to contracts which are actually made in this country. The argument could only be good, if it were true to say that no contract of apprenticeship would be valid but such as was made in actual compliance with the statute of Elizabeth. No lawyer will make such an assertion. The statute of Elizabeth certainly says, that " any apprentice taken otherwise than in conformity with the provisions of this act, shall render the indentures null and void to all intents and purposes;" yet the cases say, that for the purpose of settlement, indentures made not in conformity with its provisions shall still be valid. So that the very thing relied on to shew that the contract can only be valid, if made in strict conformity with the law of the country, decides the case against the argument it is cited to support.

Order of Sessions confirmed.