ATESLEY and bell when a rule be make only in general for the inspection of  public book what shall not be say to be a breach of it on rule to show cause  why a attachment shall not be grant against the defendant for not allow the  plaintiff to take copy of certain pollbook make at a election of a officer in  the city of Norwich in pursuance of a rule of court make for inspect all  public book Mr masterman say that there ought to have be a particular rule for  inspect the pollbook and so it be resolve in Brocass case and likewise in the  case of sir Peter Delmee accord the rule be discharge king v inhabitant of  Hornbey Barnardiston er report date Barnardiston king b the king and the  inhabitant OF HORNBEY how far a person gain a settlement or not by live in a  parish as a apprentice on rule to show cause why a order of session discharge  a order of two justice for the removal of one Martha Danvers from the parish  Carleton to the parish of Hornbey shall not be quash the fact state by the  order appear to be that one finetta pinewood make her will and thereby give  pound for the bind out such poor person apprentice in the parish of Hornbey as  her executor together with the minister churchwarden and overseer shall  appoint that Martha Danvers be bind out apprentice in this parish with this  pound that neither the executor of finetta pinewood nor the minister of the  parish be party to the indenture nor do Barnardiston king b er p Martha  Danvers execute the same but that the churchwarden and overseer with two  justice of the peace be party to it and that Martha Danvers live in the parish  of Hornbey six month accord upon this state of the case the counsel say that  they apprehend the justice at the session be clear right in discharge the  order they observe that it must undoubted be admit even by the other side that  Martha Danvers can possible have gain a settlement by any thing that have be  do unless some statute will warrant it the two most material statute for this  purpose be Elizabeth and James but the statute of Elizabeth require that the  two justice bind the child out shall be of the quorum and likewise that male  child shall be bind out till the age of twentyfour and female child till the  age of twentyone or marriage nothing of which appear to have be in the present  case and therefore the present case can at all come within the relief of that  statute then as to the statute of James that require that no person bind out  in pursuance of that Act shall be above the age of fifteen which do not appear  to be the case of the present person remove for which reason that statute can  be material neither they take notice likewise that Martha Danvers ought to  have execute this indenture and this they observe be the case of every infant  that be bind a apprentice accord to the custom of the city of London the  infant in that case always execute the indenture for which reason they  apprehend that the settlement of Martha Danvers in the parish of Hornbey can  by no mean be maintain the counsel on the other side say that they do agree  that Martha Danvers be no party to the indenture but they submit it that it be  not material that she shall be and that the case of the infant accord to the  custom of the city of London be a case peculiar to itself and therefore can  not influence the present one they do agree far that it be not express mention  in the indenture that if she marry before the age of twentyone the  apprenticeship shall determine but they observe that the law imply that and  therefore such clause will have be immaterial then as to the other objection  that be make they observe that the truth of the fact be with Barnardiston king  b they and appear so to the justice of the session though the justice have not  state the fact so upon their order for which reason they pray that they may be  at liberty to apply to the justice to amend their return which the court  accord grant so the matter be order to stand over vide post