Does this sound like it could be him? It's a case arising from the fact that paupers were only permitted relief in their home parish, and there were complicated rules determining which the home parish was.
This John Fisher has presumably claimed relief in Sheffield parish, which is trying to palm him off onto Brampton Bierlow... which is trying to palm him right back onto Sheffield. This happened a lot...
TUESDAY, — The Court opened at nine o'clock.
Brampton Bierlow, Appellants, Sheffield, Respondents.
Mr. Hall and Mr. Pashley for the appellants, and Sir G. Lewin and Mr. Hardy for the respondents.
This was an appeal against an order of justices for the removal of John Fisher, a pauper, with his wife and children, from Sheffield to Brampton Bierlow. The pauper proved and produced his indentures, to shew that in 1815 he was apprenticed to Geo. Schofield, of Worsbro', blacksmith, for 5 years and 14 weeks, and it was stipulated that he should have three weeks in January each year, to go to school. In these three weeks of the last year, instead of going to school, he went to West Melton, and worked for John White, who told him if he would come again when he had completed his apprenticeship, he would engage him. In March, 1821, the pauper came of age, and receiving his indentures from Schofield, went to White and agreed with him for a year, at nine guineas a year, and his board and lodging. Having served that year, he made another agreement on the same terms, for three years more, which he served. These two agreements were written in a book by Schofield, and signed by the pauper with his cross, but he had never seen the book since. He lately applied to Mary Kelly, the widow of Schofield, for it, but she said she could not find it….. G. Schofield proved that he knew John Fisher, once his apprentice, who having completed his apprenticeship with him, went and worked for John White, of West Melton. …. Mary Kelly was called, and proved that she had sought for, and could not find the book in which her former husband had the entries of Fisher's engagements. She said also that there was only one agreement, and that was for three years, made when the pauper was the apprentice of Schofield, and worked three weeks for White. There was no fresh agreement made when Fisher came back after the completion of his apprenticeship. It came out also that a man named Bell made out White's accounts, after his death. The appellants' Counsel, therefore, objected that respondents had not sufficiently accounted for the loss of the book, but should have called Bell, who, for aught that appeared, might have it ...The Court overruled the objection. …. Mr. Hall then relying on the evidence of Mrs. Kelly, urged that any agreement made by the pauper during his apprenticeship must be a nullity; and as Mrs. Kelly had negatived the statement that there was any agreement subsequent to the termination of his apprenticeship, it did not appear that there was anything more than a weekly hiring .The Court confirmed the order.
Sheffield Independent - Saturday 09 July 1842