and resisting the authority of his said master Samuel Master, and sentenced to be committed to the common jail, in said county, as a house of correction, and there to be confined to hard labor for the term of thirty days, unless sooner discharged by our order: These are, therefore, by authority of the State of Connecticut, to command you to take the said Oliver Orphan, and him commit to the keeper of said house of correction (or of said jail), and leave with him this mittimus; and the said keeper is hereby commanded to receive the said Oliver Orphan, and him safely keep and confine to hard labor within said jail during said term of thirty days from the date hereof, unless sooner discharged by our order.

Dated at Haddam, this 26th day of January, 1896.

Abraham Kent, Justice of the Peace.

6. Order for the Discharge of Master from His Contract. Form No. 2032.

(Title and venue as in Form No. 2017.)

Complaint on oath was made to this court by Samuel Master, watchmaker, of Redwood City, in said county, to whom the said Oliver Orphan was lawfully bound by indentures of apprenticeship, the time of service in which was still unexpired, that the said Oliver Orphan had refused to serve him the said Samuel Master (or state the misconduct alleged in the master's complaint) as by law and the terms of his indenture he was required to do; and the said Oliver Orphan, together with his father John Orphan (or his mother Mary Orphan) (or Samuel Short, his guardian), a party to the said indenture, by virtue of our citation thereupon issued has appeared before this court; and upon due examination of proofs and allegation of the parties, it satisfactorily appears to us that the said Oliver Orphan is guilty of the premises so charged against him: Now, therefore, it is ordered that the said Samuel Master be and hereby is discharged from his contract of apprenticeship with the said Oliver Orphan, anything in the indentures of apprenticeship as aforesaid to the contrary notwithstanding. And it is further considered by this court that the said Samuel Master should recover from the said John Orphan, the father (or Mary Orphan, the mother, or Samuel Short,1 the guardian) of the said Oliver Orphan (or from the said Oliver Orphan,2 if no one signed the indenture with him) the costs and disbursements incurred in this complaint, amounting to the sum of thirty dollars, and for the recovery of this sum it is ordered that execution issue. (Concluding in the usual manner.)3

1. If the guardian were an overseer of the poor, or other public officer, he would not be liable for the costs incurred in this complaint.

2. If no one signed the indentures with the minor, and the minor has no

property, an action may be maintained against him for the amount of costs when he attains his majority.

3. For the formal parts of orders generally, including the conclusion, consult the title ORDERS.

7. Order Discharging Apprentice from Apprenticeship.

Form No. 2033.

(Title and venue as in Form No. 2017.)

Whereas it was decreed by said court on the first day of February, 1896, that the said Oliver Orphan be bound and apprenticed to one Samuel Master, a watchmaker, of said county, upon condition that (insert condition). And whereas the said Oliver Orphan departed from his said master's service without the said master's permission, it appears to this court that the said Samuel Master had not fulfilled his covenants with the said Oliver Orphan, but had wholly failed to provide him with suitable meat and drink (or other breach) and the court therefore deems it proper to discharge the said Oliver Orphan from his apprenticeship, and he is hereby discharged accordingly.1 (Concluding in the usual manner.)2

:

IV. PROCEEDINGS ON AN INDENTURE OF APPRENTICESHIP.

1. At Common Law.

a. Declaration in Covenant.

(1) AGAINST FATHER FOR THE APPRENTICE ABSENTING HIMSELF..

Form No. 2034.

(Precedent in 2 Chit. Pl. 282; Tillingh. Forms 407; Humph. Prac. 708.) 3 Markham and Le Blanc.

Trinity Term, 15 Geo. III. Middlesex, to wit. John Doe complains of Richard Roe, being in the custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea of our lord the now king, before the king himself, of a plea of breach of covenant; 4* for that whereas heretofore, to wit, on the fifth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-two, a Westminster in said county, by a certain Indenture of apprenticeship then and there made -one part of which said indenture, sealed with the seal of the said Richard Roe, the said John Doe now brings here into

1. When the master's charge is not sustained, the court may in its discretion give judgment that the apprentice shall recover a certain sum as a penalty. In such case the following clause should be added at this point: "It is further considered by this court that the said Oliver Orphan should recover from the said Samuel Master the sum of fifty dollars, and for the recovery of

this sum it is ordered that execution issue."

2. For the formal parts of orders generally, including the conclusion, consult the title ORDERS.

3. See also precedents in 3 Wentw. Pl. 417; 2 Rev. Swift's Dig. 561.

4. For the formal parts of declarations generally, consult the title

DECLARATIONS.

Court, the date whereof is the same day and year aforesaid -one James Roe did put himself apprentice to the said John Doe, to learn his art, trade, and mystery of a soapboiler, and with him, after the manner of an apprentice, to serve from the date thereof unto the full end and term of seven years from thence next following, to be fully complete and ended, during which term it was thereby covenanted and agreed, that the said apprentice † his said master faithfully should serve, his secrets keep, his lawful commands everywhere gladly do, and that he should not haunt taverns or play-houses, nor absent himself from his said master's service day or night unlawfully, but in all things as a faithful apprentice should behave himself towards his said master, and all his, during the said term.ft And for the true performance by the said James Roe, of all and every the covenants and agreements therein contained on the part and behalf of the said James Roe, to be performed and fulfilled, the said Richard Roe thereby bound himself unto the said John Doe as by the said indenture, reference being thereunto had, will, amongst other things, more fully and at large appear. By virtue of which said indenture the said James Roe afterwards, to wit, on the said fifth day of May, at Westminster aforesaid, entered, and was then and there received into the service of the said John Doe as such apprentice as aforesaid, and remained and continued in such service under, and by virtue of the said indenture, for a long space of time, to wit, from the day and year last aforesaid, until and upon the thirteenth day of January, Á.D. 1775, to wit, at Westminster aforesaid. And although he the said John Doe hath always, from the time of the making of the said indenture, hitherto well and truly performed, fulfilled, and kept all things therein mentioned and contained, on his part and behalf to be performed, fulfilled, and kept, according to the tenor and effect, true intent and meaning thereof, the said John Doe in fact saith that the said James Roe did not, nor would, faithfully serve the said John Doe according to the tenor and effect, true intent and meaning of the said indenture; but on the contrary thereof, he the said James Roe, during the said term, to wit, on the thirteenth day of January last named, at Westminster aforesaid, did unlawfully absent himself, and hath, from thence, hitherto remained and continued absent from the service of the said John Doe, contrary to the tenor and effect of the said indenture, and of the said covenant of the said Richard Roe in that behalf made as aforesaid. And so the said John Doe in fact saith that the said Richard Roe though often requested so to do has not kept said covenant so by him made as aforesaid, but hath broken the same, and to keep the same with the said John Doe has hitherto wholly neglected and refused, and still does neglect and refuse, to the damage of the said John Doe of £100, and therefore he brings his suit, etc.

(2) AGAINST THE Apprentice.

(a) For Not Serving His Time.

Form No. 2035.

(Precedent in 3 Wentw. Pl. 433.)1

(Commencing as in Form No. 2034, and continuing down to *) for that whereas by a certain indenture made the eleventh day of October, A.D. 1772, at London, in the parish of St. Mary-le-Bow in the ward of Cheap, between the said defendant by the name of Richard Roe, son of Roger Roe, of the one part, and the said plaintiff by the name of John Doe, of the other part, which said indenture, sealed with the seal of said defendant, and bearing date the day and year aforesaid, the said plaintiff now brings into court here,* said defendant did put himself apprentice to the said plaintiff to learn his art, and with him after the manner of an apprentice serve from the day of the date of said indenture until the full end and term of seven years from thence next ensuing, and fully to be complete and ended; during which said term said apprentice (here were set out the conditions in the indenture);2 and for the true performance of all and singular the covenants and agreements in said indenture contained, either of the said parties bound himself to the other firmly by the said indenture, as in and by the said indenture, relation being thereto had, will more fully appear: And said plaintiff avers, that said defendant on the eleventh day of October, A.D. 1772, in the parish aforesaid, at London aforesaid, in pursuance of said indenture, entered and was received into the service of said plaintiff; and said plaintiff further saith, that afterwards, and during the continuance of said term of seven years in said indenture mentioned, and before the end and expiration thereof, that is to say, on the first day of September, A.D. 1775, he said defendant without the leave, license, and consent, and against the will of said plaintiff, departed, absented, and withdrew himself from and out of the service of said plaintiff, and stayed and continued from and out of the service of said plaintiff for and during a long space of time, to wit, from thence until the end, expiration, and determination of said term of seven years in said indenture mentioned, contrary to the tenor and effect, true intent, and meaning of said indenture, and of said covenant of him said defendant so by him made in this behalf as aforesaid; whereby and by means whereof he said plaintiff, during all that time, wholly lost and was deprived of all the profit, benefit, and advantage that might and would have arisen and accrued to him from the service of said defendant during all that time at London aforesaid; and so (concluding as in Form No. 2034).

1. See also a precedent in Lawyer's Guide 455.

2. See the clause between + and ++ in Form No. 2034, supra.

(b) For Revealing Secrets.

Form No. 2036.

(Precedent in 3 Wentw. Pl. 436.)

(Commencing as in Form No. 2035, and continuing down to *) he the said John, for the considerations therein mentioned, did (recite the indenture), as by the said indenture, reference being thereto had, will amongst other things more fully and at large appear:* And the said Roger and Joseph in fact say, that although the said Roger and Joseph from the time of the making of the said indenture, hitherto have exercised and carried on, and still do exercise and carry on the said business of a printer and embosser in the said indenture mentioned, by divers ways, means, and methods, which, until the discovering thereof by the said John as hereafter mentioned, were unknown to others; and although the said John, upon the making of the said indenture, entered and was received into the service of them the said Roger and Joseph, in their said business, upon and under the terms in the said indenture, and continued in such service from thence for a long time, to wit, until the thirteenth day of June, A.D. 1787; and although they the said Roger and Joseph have always, from the time of the making of the said indenture, performed and fulfilled all things in the said indenture contained on their part and behalf of them the said Roger and Joseph to be performed and fulfilled, to wit, at Marlbridge aforesaid: Yet protesting that the said John did not, whilst he was so in the service of the said Roger and Joseph as aforesaid, perform or fulfil anything in the said indenture contained on the part and behalf of him the said John to be performed and fulfilled; they the said Roger and Joseph in fact say that the said John hath not faithfully and inviolably kept the discoveries, inventions, improvements, and other secrets in trade of the said Roger and Joseph, but on the contrary, after the making of the said indenture, and whilst he the said John was so in the service of the said Roger and Joseph as aforesaid, to wit, on the tenth day of June, A.D. 1787, and before and since, to wit, at Marlbridge aforesaid, he the said John did discover, disclose, reveal, and make known and cause to be discovered, disclosed, revealed, and made known unto one John Hart and one Henry Ackerley and divers other persons who now are at present unknown to the said Roger and Joseph, divers and very many of the said discoveries, inventions, improvements, and other secrets in trade of them the said Roger and Joseph, to wit, the machines, engines, compositions, process, and method then and there used by them the said Roger and Joseph, in embossing goods in their aforesaid business, and divers other of the secrets in trade of them the said Roger and Joseph, contrary to the tenor and effect of the said indenture, and of the aforesaid covenant of the said John in that behalf made as aforesaid: And the said Roger and Joseph further say, that the said John afterwards, and during the said term of seven years in the said indenture in that behalf mentioned, and before the full end and