between the inhabitant OF saint nicholas and saint Peter in Ipswich a service  of four year under indenture of apprenticeship for that period be sufficient  to gain a settlement and although the Elizabeth c make all apprenticeship in  corporate town for less than seven year void yet indenture for a less than  time be voidable only as between the party Str Ses Cas pl andr SC burr set Cas  pl more full S c upon a special order of session before the justice of Ipswich  the case be I g the pauper be a unmarried person and under sixteen year of age  be bind apprentice to a of the parish of saint Peter cordwainer by indenture  between the master and apprentice for four year only and do serve only four  year and hereupon the question be whether that apprenticeship have gain  settlement this be move last term but the court doubt it be order to be speak  to again this term Abney and strange of counsel both then and now Abney that  this be no settlement the apprenticeship be upon the stat Elizabeth c S which  require the bind to be for seven year at the least and the first sect enact  that all indenture of apprenticeship otherwise take than as direct by the  statute shall be void to all intent and purpose and he cite the case of  Curenden and Laland stram andr Ses Cas pl Barnard b r S c where a order of  session that adjudge a service under a indenture of apprenticeship which be  not agreeable to the stat Ann c to be a good settlement be quash because by  the that sect of that statute all indenture not make in compliance to that Act  be make void strange that this be a good settlement by virtue of the stat W  and m c two which enact that bind by indenture and inhabitation shall gain a  settlement at least it be a good settlement within the that sect as be a hire  and service for a year if the indenture be to be deem void by statute of  Elizabeth t will be case tempt Hardwicke very mischievous to say that clause  make all indenture absolute void for there be no indenture that comply with  all particular circumstance require by the Act he cite salk apprenticeship for  four year hold a settlement Lord Hardwicke c j it have be say that the stat  Elizabeth c be the first Act for gain settlement but that be a mistake for  though that be the first print Act in the common statutebook yet there be  other both in the reign of Henry VIII and of Edward VI which be print in  Rastalls statute as to the point now before we if this be a exception it be  surprise it shall not have be take before now and I do not find any case where  the exception be take as to its gain a settlement the question be whether  serve and inhabit as the law require though bind but for four year will gain a  settlement and I think it will the word of the stat Elizabeth c S be that a  freeman may retain the son of a freeman to serve to be bind as a apprentice  accord to the custom of London for seven year at least between which section  and the first section there be many other clause relate to person liable to be  bind apprentice then the first section that all indenture otherwise take than  as that Act direct shall be void now have the first section a relation to all  the forgo clause as far as the that section and if it have do it make the  indenture void or only voidable I think it have relation to all the clause but  I think it do not make the indenture absolute void so as to avoid a settlement  but only voidable if the party think fit to take advantage of any defect there  be many case where act of parliament make thing void and yet they be not hold  to be Self facto void but only voidable so upon the stat Westminster which  make a fine levy by tenant in tail to be Self jure no one yet the construction  be that such fine be not absolute void for it take away the entry of the issue  in tail and put he to his action to avoid it there be other case of the same  sort in hob and the distinction take and particular which be material in this  case upon the stat h VI c of sheriff bind where the party can plead non be  factum but must plead the Act of parliament and show the special matter the  case now in question be of a case tempt Hardwicke er p indenture between  master and apprentice to serve for four year and the apprentice have serve and  inhabit for four year so that it have its effect between the party and have  not be avoid by they and it be therefore extreme hard when the contract be  perform and the parish have have the benefit of the service to say that the  apprentice shall not have the benefit of his settlement in the case of barber  and Dennis I salk and Mod it be hold that a action of trover lie by the master  for two case tempt Hardwicke ticket earn by his apprentice though the  indenture not good within the statute of Elizabeth for holt say he will  understand he a apprentice de facto and that will be sufficient title for the  plaintiff so that he think that as the apprentice have not take advantage to  avoid the indenture and there be a actual bind the master may maintain a  action of trover whereas if statute of Elizabeth have as strong a operation as  have be contend for to make the indenture void to all purpose it will have be  to that purpose therefore it must be understand that the statute only make the  indenture voidable if they be absolute void then if a indenture want any one  of the qualification require by the statute it will be void and that  construction will go near to make void all the settlement by apprenticeship  that have happen since the make of the Act then come the statute of W m c I  and that statute take up the validity of the bind as it find it and do not  intend to require any new circumstance but only intend to take away the  necessity of give particular notice to the parish and therefore as this be a  bind which have have its effect between the party it must be a settlement  within that statute there be the stat h VIII c which be print in rastall at  large that person bear or dwell three year in any place shall be entitle to  relief there but the strict notion of settlement as they be at present arise  from the stat pound car h suppose then that this present question have arise  between the time of stat Elizabeth and car two there will then have be no  doubt but he have gain a settlement by three year inhabitation and it will be  extreme bare to say that the alteration of settlement since that time shall  make another construction what puzzle I in this case be that case of Curenden  and Laland but I think that material differ from this for in that statute of  Ann there be not only the word that it shall be void to all intent and purpose  but the statute say likewise that it shall not be available in any court or  place or to any purpose whatsoever and at section the statute say that such  indenture shall not be give or admit in evidence unless upon oath make that  the sum therein mention be all that be give with the apprentice so that the  order in that case be have for they have admit the indenture as evidence which  they ought not to have do and it have be resolve that a order may be quash as  well for admit illegal evidence as for make a have order upon the merit  therefore in that case they ought to have reject the indenture as evidence and  then there be no evidence of the apprenticeship before they lee I it be the  constant construction when a Act of parliament make any thing void if it be a  judicial matter it must be avoid by writ of error and if it be any thing that  be extrinsic to the deed case tempt Hardwicke it must be plead the statute for  make void sheriff bind be as strong word as this statute so in case of a  usurious contract you can plead non be factum but must plead special and pray  judgement si action c per cur the order of session must be quash and the order  of the two justice which remove he to the place of his apprenticeship affirm  see con