2. During the minority of a child, there can be no emancipation unless he marries, and so becomes himself the head of a family, or contracts some other relation, so as wholly and permanently to exclude the parental controul. Semble, that the acquiring a settlement of his own does not properly constitute an emancipation. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Wilmington, H. 2 and 3 G. 4. Page 525 3. Where the unemancipated daughter of an Irishman, not having acquired any settlement of his own in England, became pregnant, being unmarried, and as such was actually chargeable under 35 G. 3. c. 101. s. 6. Held, that this did not make her father and the rest of his family removable by a pass to Ireland under 59 G. 3. c. 12. s. 33.; but that the daughter might be removed by an order to the place of her birth in England. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Whitehaven, E. 3 G. 4. 720 4. Where a district, previously extraparochial, was, by act of parliament, made a township, and it was provided that from thenceforth it should maintain its own poor, and repair its own roads, and have the like powers, privileges, and immunities, and be subject to the same regulations, as other townships within the county: Held, that this clause was prospective only, and that a bastard born within the district previously to passing the act, was not settled there. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Oakmere, E. 3 G. 4. 775

SETTLEMENT BY APPRENTICESHIP.

1. An indenture of apprenticeship, executed before the passing of the 44 G. 3. c.98., must be stamped with the premium stamp within the

time prescribed by the statute 8 Anne, c. 9., and where such an indenture was stamped at the time of its being produced in evidence, with the stamp required by the 55 G. 3. c. 184., but not within the time prescribed by the statute of Anne : Held, that the indenture was wholly void, and that the pauper, by serving under it, gained no settlement. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Chipping Norton, H. 2 and 3 G. 4. Page 412

2. Where a parish apprentice was assigned by his original master to I. S., by an instrument in writing, but there was no consent of two magistrates: Held, that this was not a lawful assignment, under 32 G.3. c. 57. s. 7., but it was sufficient to shew the consent of the first master to the service to I. S., and consequently, such service was good as a service under the original indenture, and conferred a settlement. Rex v. The Inhabitants of Barlestone, E. 3 G. 4. 780

SET-OFF.

Assumpsit in consideration that the plaintiff, for the accommodation, and at the request of the defendant, would accept certain bills of exchange, and would deliver them, so accepted to the defendant, in order that he might negotiate the same for his own benefit, defendant undertook to provide money for the payment of the said bills, as they became due, and to indemnify the plaintiff from any loss or damage by reason of the acceptance thereof. Breach, that defendant did not provide money for the bills, nor indemnify the plaintiff from damage, by reason whereof the plaintiff, as acceptor, was forced and obliged to pay to the holders

of

By a local act relating to the commissioners of sewers for Westminster, it was provided that no plaintiff should recover in any action brought for any thing done in pursuance of the general acts 1. for sewers, or that act, unless notice in writing was given to the defendants, specifying the cause of such action. A notice stated that the defendants, who were contractors under the commissioners, made, altered, &c. certain sewers, &c. running under, through, or adjoining, or near to the plaintiff's house, in so negligent, incautious, unskilful, improvident, and improper a manner, that it fell down; and by the declaration and proof given, it appeared that the sewer did not run close to the plaintiff's house, but close to five other houses adjoining thereon, and that the house was damaged, and fell in consequence of the fall of a stack of chimneys of one of those houses, which had been built on the arch of the sewer, and which had been insufficiently shored up by the defendants during the continuance of the work: Held, that this notice sufficiently described the cause of action: Held, also, that commissioners of sewers, and persons working by their order, in the course of the necessary repair of a sewer in the neighbourhood of

2.

proper precautions for securing them, and to shore them up if necessary, as skilful persons would do, and that they were bound, under the above circumstances, to give specific notice to the owner of the house to which the stack of chimneys belonged, of their construction, and of the danger arising therefrom, and that a general notice to him to take proper means to secure his house was not sufficient. Jones v. Bird, T. 3 G. 4. Page 837

SHERIFF.

The growing crops of a tenant having been seized under a fi. fa., a writ of hab. fac. poss. was subsequently delivered to the sheriff in an ejectment, at the suit of the landlord, founded on a demise made long before the issuing of fi. fa. Held, that the sheriff was not bound to sell the growing crops under the fi. fa., inasmuch as they could not, in point of law, be considered as belonging to the tenant, the latter being a trespasser from the day of demise laid in the declaration: Held, also, that the sheriff had no right to allow to the landlord a year's rent, under the stat. of 8 Ẩnn. c.14. that statute contemplating an existing tenancy, which, in this case, must be taken to have ceased on the day of the demise in the ejectment. Hodgson and Others, Assignees of Seaton v. 88 Gascoigne, M. 2 G. 4.

A sheriff has no right under a fi. fa. to seize fixtures, where the house in which they are situated is the freehold of the person against whom the execution issues. Winn v. Ingilby, E. 3 G. 4.

SHIP.

625

to

to a vendee resident in the port in which the ship is registered, is not valid, unless copies of the bills of sale are delivered to the customhouse officers in that port within a reasonable time after the sale. Richardson and Others, Assignees of Wyler and Another v. Campbell, M. 2G.4. Page 196 2. The captain of a ship has no authority to sell the cargo, except in cases of absolute necessity; and, therefore, where, in the course of a voyage from India, the ship was wrecked off the Cape of Good Hope, and some indigo, which was part of the cargo, was saved, and the same was there sold by public auction, by the authority of the captain, acting bonâ fide according to the best of his judgment for the benefit of all persons concerned; but the jury found that there was no absolute necessity for the sale: Held, that the purchaser at such sale acquired no title, and the indigo having been sent to this country, the original owners were held entitled to recover its value. Freeman v. The East India Company, E. 3 G. 4. 617 3. A., a ship-builder, contracted with B. to build a ship for B., and complete her in April, 1819. The latter was to pay for her by four instalments; the first when the keel was laid, the second when they were at the light plank, and the third and fourth when the ship was launched. Before the 25th June, 1819, the ship was measured, with the builder's privity, to the intent that B. might get her registered in his name. On the 25th the shipbuilder signed the usual certificate of her building, and on the 26th the ship was registered in B.'s name, and on that day the third instalment was paid. On the 30th

ruptcy, upon which a commission afterwards issued. On the 2d of July, the ship not being then completed or launched, B. and a crew hired by him took possession of the ship and a rudder and cordage, the former of which was made by the ship-builder, and the latter bought by him for the express purpose of completing the ship: Held, first, that the legal effect of the shipbuilder's having signed the certificate to enable B. to have the ship registered in his name, was to vest the general ownership in B. from the time the registry was completed: Held, secondly, that as the rudder and cordage were made and bought by the ship-builder specifically for the ship, they were to be considered as parts of the ship; and that the property in them also vested in B.: Held, thirdly, that although the general property in the ship was vested in B., yet, as A. had not parted with the possession, and as he would have had a lien upon the ship for the amount of the fourth instalment, if he had completed it; that the taking possession of the ship by B., without tendering the amount of the fourth instalment, or so much thereof as was due, provided any thing was due, was wrongful, and, consequently, that the assignees of A. were entitled to recover from B. the amount of the fourth instalment, provided the expense necessary for the completion of the ship did not amount to that sum, or so much thereof as would remain due after defraying such expense. Woods and Another, Assignees of Paton, a Bankrupt v. Russell, T. 3 G.4. Page 942

SHIP OWNER.

try

try a question respecting which the law is doubtful, is a good consideration for a promise to pay a stipulated sum; and, therefore, where a ship, having on board a pilot required by law, ran foul of another vessel, and proceedings were instituted by the owners of the latter, to compel the owners of the former to make good the damage, and the former vessel was detained until bail was given, and pending such proceedings, the agents of the owners of the vessel detained agreed, on the owners of the damaged vessel renouncing all claims on the other vessel; and on their proving the amount of the damage done, to indemnify them, and to pay a stipulated sum by way of damages: Held, that, there being contradictory decisions as to the point whether thip owners were liable for an injury done while their ship was under the control of the pilot required by law, there was a sufficient consideration to sustain the promise made by the agents of the owners of the detained vessel to pay the stipulated damages. Longridge and Others v. Dorville, M. 2 G. 4. Page 117

SMUGGLER.

A smuggler may be a trader within 1 Jac. 1. c. 15. s. 2. as being a person who seeks his trade of living by buying and selling, although such buying and selling be illegal. A penalty due to the crown is a debt within 21 Jac. 1. c. 19. s. 2., and, therefore, where a trader lay in prison above two months, being unable to pay exchequer penalties for smuggling: Held, that it was an act of bankruptcy. Cobb, Assignee of Monsey,

16

1. An indenture of apprenticeship, executed before the passing of the 44 G. 3. c. 98. must be stamped with the premium stamp within the time prescribed by the statute 8 Anne, c. 9., and where such an indenture was stamped at the time of its being produced in evidence, with the stamp required by the 55 G. 3. c. 184. but not within the time prescribed by the statute of Anne: Held, that the indenture was wholly void, and that the pauper, by serving under it, gained no settlement. Rer v. The Inhabitants of Chipping Norton, H.

2 and 3 G. 4. 412 2. Three persons joined as drawer, acceptor, and first indorser in making an accommodation bill, and it was afterwards issued for value to J. S. Previously to its being so issued, its date had been altered: Held, that the acceptor having assented to the alteration when he was informed of it, it was no answer to an action on the bill against him, that the bill had been so altered without the consent of the drawer and first indorser, and that a fresh stamp was not necessary in consequence of such alter ation, the bill having been altered before it was issued in point of law. Downes v. Richardson, E. 3 G. 4.

674

STATUTE,