The farmer, wanting reapers, should see Irish labourers passing BAYLEY, J.-I agree that this act of parliament ought to receive such a construction as is consonant with the object which the legislature had in view in passing it, and calculated to promote the attainment of that object; but I do not agree that it should be construed in so unlimited a mode, as to render every description of work on a Sunday, illegal. It enumerates certain persons to whom it is intended to apply, namely, tradesmen, artificers, workmen, and labourers. If the prohibition was intended to embrace all descriptions of persons, and every species of business, why was this enumeration of particular classes of persons adopted, when the simple expression, "no person whatsoever," would so clearly and unequivocally have explained the meaning? I cannot help thinking, that if the provision had been intended to be general, the language in which it was framed, would have been general also. But, it has been urged that the words, "worldly labour" in the act, ought to be read disjunctively from the rest of the sentence in which they are found; and that, being so read, they will have reference to cases where the contract has been made by parties not exercising their ordinary calling. I cannot adopt that construction of the act; I think the act was meant to apply only to cases where one, or both, of the contracting parties was acting in his ordinary calling, or business, as it may be more properly termed. I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion, that the exercise of every descrip 1827. The KING บ. WHITNASH. 1827. The KING บ. WHITNASH. tion of business was intended to be prohibited. The real interests of religion do not require such strictness. It is not necessary that every hour of every Sunday should be dedicated to acts of devotion. I can conceive that a man may act very laudably in making a bargain like this on a Sunday, without at all interfering with his religious duties. I think a man, by so doing, may materially add to the comforts, and diminish the labours of his servants, and in so doing be in the performance of a duty, instead of a crime. If so, there can be nothing militating against the interests of religion, or, consequently, against the object for the furtherance of which this statute was passed, in the transaction between the pauper and his master. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the act of hiring a servant by a master, or of contracting for a service by a labourer, on a Sunday, is not an offence within the letter or spirit of this act of parliament, and consequently that the pauper, having served his due time, under a legal hiring, has acquired a settlement. Surely it would be absurd to say that such an act, which can be performed only once in the course of a year, is a part of the ordinary calling of either the master or the servant. HOLROYD, J.-I think the hiring in this case was a lawful hiring, and that due service under it conferred a settlement on the pauper. The object of the statute was to prohibit persons from carrying on their ordinary business and calling on the sabbath. It is a penal act, and, therefore, is not to be construed so as to give it an operation extending beyond the clear and necessary import of its words. Construing it according to that rule, it seems to me that the business, or work, or labour of persons, performing it in the course of their ordinary calling, was all that was intended to be prohibited; and that the contract entered into between these parties, does not come within that prohibition. If the servant had gone to plough, or the master had made a sale of corn, upon the Sunday, each would have been exercising his ordinary calling, and would have come within the purview of the statute; but the one hiring a servant, and the other letting himself to a service, does not appear to me to come within that description, or to be an offence against the provisions of the act. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the pauper was lawfully hired. LITTLEDALE, J.-I am clearly of opinion that there was a lawful hiring in this case. I have no doubt that the words "ordinary calling," in the act, were meant to extend to all the preceding words in the sentence, and ought to be read in connection with the words, "worldly labour." I think this is evident from the context. Tradesmen, artificers, workmen, and labourers, are specifically named, and the other persons mentioned, must be taken to be other persons, ejusdem generis. If so, the act cannot extend to a case like the present. Nor ought it. Such an act, penal in its consequences, ought not to be so construed as to have an operation beyond its fair meaning. The act of hiring on the one side, or of letting on the other, was not, in my opinion, an exercise of the ordinary calling of either of the parties, in the fair sense of those words; nor was there any work, business, or labour, in it. Order of Sessions confirmed (a). 1827. The KING v. WHITNASH. (a) See Rex v. Brotherton, 2 Stra. 702; Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 135; Bloxsome v. Williams, 5 D. & R. 82: 3 B. & C. 232; Sandiman v. Bridge, K. B. Trinity term, 1827. That was an action against a stage coach proprietor, to recover the expences incurred by the plaintiff in consequence of the defendant neglecting to convey him from Clapton to London, on a Sunday evening, the 1827. The KING V. nonsuit was afterwards granted, WHITNASH. stage coach proprietors were not within the scope of either of those statutes and that the action was maintainable. Ed. MSS. Where an apprentice is bound out of a parish by his father, but The KING v. The Inhabitants of STOKE DAMAREL. JANE COLEMAN was removed by an order of two justices from the parish of Stoke Damarel, to the parish of Charles, in the borough of Plymouth, both in the county of Devon; and upon appeal, the sessions quashed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the followrochial funds, ing case. part of the ex penses is paid out of the pa the indenture must be ap "under their hands and or it will be void ab initio, and service under it will tlement. The pauper, Jane Coleman, daughter of Thomas Coleproved by two man, of the parish of Stoke Damarel, was bound apprenjustices, tice on the 16th October, 1823, to Jeremiah Ellis, of the parish of Charles, in the borough of Plymouth. The indenseals," pursuant to 56 Geo. ture which was on a one pound stamp, was executed by 3, c. 139, s.11, the master, the pauper, and her father, and the following allowance was written on the margin :-"Devon, to wit. We, whose names are underwritten, justices of the peace confer no set for the county aforesaid, whereof one is of the quorum, do consent to and allow the putting forth Jane Coleman an apprentice, according to the intent and meaning of this indenture." This allowance was signed by E. Lockyer and S. Pym, two justices of the peace for the county of Devon, but was not under seal. Upon the binding of the said Jane Coleman by the said indenture, an expense was incurred by the public parochial funds of the said parish of Stoke Damarel, that is to say, nine pounds, being the consideration-money mentioned in the said indenture, and a further sum, being the costs and charges attending the binding. No notice was given to the overseers of the poor of the parish of Charles, or the guardians of the poor of Plymouth, or to any of them, of the intention to bind out such apprentice, previously to the binding. Plymouth is a borough situate in the county of Devon, having justices who have exclusive jurisdiction therein. The pauper resided in service under the indenture with the said Jeremiah Ellis, from the date of the said indenture until she was discharged from further service under it on the 3d July, 1826, by two magistrates (a). Nolan and Praed, in support of the order of sessions. The question in this case will depend upon the construction to be given to certain sections of the statute 56 Geo. 3, · c. 139, namely, the first, second, fifth, and eleventh (b). (a) The following were added to the special case, as the points for argument. "The counsel in support of the order of sessions will contend that the circumstances stated, bring this case either within the provisions of the second, and fifth sections of the 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, or within those of the 11th section of that act. That on the first supposition, no settlement has been gained in the parish of Charles, because no notice was given to the overseers of that parish previous to the binding: and on the second, because the justices' approval of the indenture was signed only, and not sealed by them." "The counsel against the order of sessions will contend that the circumstances stated in the case do not bring it within the provisions of the first, second, or fifth section of the 56 Geo. 3, c. 139, or within the provisions of the 11th section of that act; but that if it falls within the last section, the provisions of that section are only directory, at least so far as relates to the requisition of a settlement." (b) Sect. 1, provides that "before any child shall be bound appren tice by the overseers of the poor of any parish, &c., such child shall be carried before two justices of the county, &c., wherein such parish, &c., shall be situate; who shall inquire into the propriety of binding such child apprentice to the person to whom it shall be proposed by such overseers to bind such child, &c.; and if such justices shall upon such examination and inquiry, think it proper that such child should be bound apprentice to such person, such justices shall make an order declaring that such person is a fit person to whom such child may be properly bound as apprentice; and shall therefore order that the overseers of the place to which such child shall belong, shall be at liberty to bind such child apprentice accordingly; which order shall be delivered to such overseers as the warrant for binding such child apprentice as aforesaid; and such order shall be referred to by the date thereof, and the names of the said justices in the indenture of apprenticeship of such child; and after such order shall have been made, such justices thall sign their allowance of such indenture of ap 1827. The KING V. STOKE DAMA REL. |