Star.
London, England, 1819-02-08 00:00:00

_.4:

r At'
,

~i

i

4

or

~
r

11

it

1.-

LAW INTALLICiE.I;iCE.

LENT ' CIRCUIT.. ASSI
Before baron Sir W.V.t!titwit rid Mr. Justice RICIASOSOM
Brazsimin.—Monday, March 1; at Leading. . •
otroassssmix—tWetioesday, March 3, at O;fard. .
Woacessensuiss.--'Saturday. March 6, at, Worcester.
Cur or Woaccsiso.—The same day, at the City of W4rcester,
StAtrosusities.--Tuesdal, March 11, at Stafford.
Satorsoinc—Wednesday, March 17, at Shrewsbury.
Hirs.voansatae.,—Monday, March 22, at Hereford.
Momatuewsulas.--i.e..urd-sy, March 27, at Monmouth.
GlACCOrlaStillut. Wednesday, ?.arch 31, at Gloucester.
Ctr 2 or CLoccrsa.—Sittne day, at the City of Gloucester.
COURT OF CHANCERY, FEBRUARY 6.
OPERA-1101.:31e..—wATE1:N V. TAYLOR.

1-lea Lo. on the part of Mr. :Taylor, made ap-
plication to the Lord Chancellor the t this case might
be decided, it having remained for so long a time
before his Lordship. Many months ago the Solicitor
General had applied to the Court, on the part of Mr.
Waters, to allow of a postponement in the pay melt
of the sum of 10,000::. into Court. This had been
grafted, but the period at which the sum, ought to
have been paid had long since expired. Under these
circtimsances,*he entreated his Lordship to come to
slim determination.
.e Loiu CHANCELLOR expressed his readiness to
dec;de the case.
Mr. HEALD—Perhaps your Lordship will allow
me to mention this case on Thursday next, at the
sizAng of the Court.
Tbe Loan CHANCELLOR—CertainIy, I can have
no objection.

COURT. OF KTNG'S 13E.NCH, FEBItUARY &

TR 'I RING V. TILE PARISH OF T. MARY; CANTERBURY.

"*.l.is was a question respecting the settlement of a
pais; er, under the following novel circumstances :
The pauper, a boy, had been bound apprentice to a
master-mariner, resident in St. Mary, Canterbury,
end continued with him some months ; but circum-
sances arising which prevented the master from get-
ting his vessel to sea, the master at the end of that
time asked his apprentice whether he would like to
be turned over to another master, or whether he
would go to school for a time, and learn navigation?
The boy chose the latter, and was accordingly sent
to a school in Canterbury, by his master, *here he
coatinued for some time, whea he ran away, and re-
turned to Shadwell, to which parish lie had origi-
nally belonged. Here he afterwards became chargeable
to the parish, and was passed to St. Mary, Canter-
bury, on the grounds that he had obtained a settle-
meat in that parish, by his service of a year. Against
this decision of the Magistrates that parish now ap-
pealed.—The Court, after hearing the argument, de-
cided that no settlement had been gained in St.
Mary's parish ; to constitute a settlement there must
Lot only be a binding, a sleeping, and support, but
there must also be labour. In the present case the
master had not had the latter. The boy was bound
to him to learn practical navigation, but he had not
done so—he was sent to school, where he was taught
theoretical navigation only—and there he went by
hii own choice, and not in consequence of any con-
-troul exercised over him by his master. This was not
such a binding and service as would settle the pauper
who still belonged to his original parish; and the
order of Sessions, settling him on St. Mary, Canter-
bury, was ordered to be quashed.