Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

intending craftily and subtly to deceive and defraud the said John Doe in this particular, hath not yet paid the said twenty pounds, or any part thereof to the said John Doe, although to do this he, the said Richard Roe, afterwards, to wit, on the said twenty-ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and thirty-seven aforesaid, and often afterwards, at Westminster aforesaid, by the said John Doe was requested, but he to pay the same hath hitherto altogether refused, and still doth refuse, to the said John Doe his damage of thirty pounds, and therefore he brings his suit, etc. Samuel Short

[blocks in formation]

VI. PROCEEDINGS FOR ENTICING AN APPRENTICE FROM SERVICE.

1. Declaration in Case, at Common Law.

Form No. 2052.

(Precedent in 8 Wentw. Pl. 438; Lawyer's Guide 391.)1

Markham and Le Blanc.

Trinity Term, 28 Geo. III. Devonshire, 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 trespass on the case; for that whereas one other Joseph Hunt on the first of June, 1788, at Barnstable in the said county of Devonshire was, and from thenceforth hitherto hath been, and still is the apprentice and servant of the said plaintiff, and as such apprentice and servant then and there, to wit, on the said first day of June, lived and resided with the said plaintiff his master; yet the said Richard Roe the now defendant, well knowing the premises aforesaid, but contriving and fraudulently and maliciously intending wrongfully to injure and damnify the said John in this respect, and craftily and subtly to deceive and defraud the said John in the service of his said apprentice and servant, and of great part of the profits and advantages which he might and ought to have had by reason of the apprenticeship and servitude of the said apprentice and servant, on the said first day of June, 1788, at Barnstable wrongfully, injuriously, and unjustly, and without the license and consent, and against the will of the said John, persuaded, procured, and enticed the said Joseph so then and still being the apprentice and servant of the said John, to absent himself and depart from the service of the said John, to wit, at Barnstable; on pretext and by means of which said persuasion, procuration, and enticement, he the said Joseph, the apprentice and servant of the said John, afterwards, to wit, on the day and date last aforesaid, at Barnstable aforesaid, without the license, and against the will and consent of the said plaintiff, wrongfully

1. See also a precedent in 2 Chit. Pl. 317; 2 Rev. Swift's Dig. 523.

and injuriously departed and absented himself from the said service. of the said John and continued absent and apart from his said service for a long time, to wit, from thence hitherto, whereby the said John hath, during all that time, wholly lost the benefit, profit, and advantage, which by reason of the service of his said apprentice he might and ought to have had and received, and otherwise should and would have received: And whereas, afterwards, to wit, on the first day of June, A.D. 1788, at Barnstable, in said Devonshire, one other Joseph Hunt then, and from thence hitherto and still being a certain other apprentice and servant of the said plaintiff, unlawfully, and without the leave, and against the will of the said plaintiff, departed and went away from the service of the said plaintiff, and then and there went and came to the said defendant; yet the said defendant, well knowing the said Joseph, the last-mentioned apprentice, to be the servant and apprentice of the said plaintiff as aforesaid, then and there received the said Joseph the said lastmentioned apprentice, and wholly refused to deliver him to the said John his master, although so to do, to wit, on the 2d day of June, A.D. 1788, and often times since, at Barnstable aforesaid, was requested by the said John, but he the said defendant unlawfully detained and entertained and kept the said Joseph the said last-mentioned apprentice, so being the apprentice of the said John from his said service from the first of June, 1788, for a long space of time, to wit, from thence hitherto, whereby the said John wholly lost the profit, benefit, and advantage which he, by reason of the service of the said Joseph Hunt, the said last-mentioned apprentice, during all that time ought to have had and received, and otherwise should and would have had and received, at Barnstable aforesaid, to the damage of the said John Doc £200, and therefore he brings. his suit, etc.

Pledges to prosecute

Samuel Short and William West.

2. Complaint or Petition under the Codes.

Form No. 2053.

(Commencing as in Form No. 2048, and continuing down to *.) 1. On February 1, 1896, Oliver Orphan was, and for a long time had been, the lawfully indented apprentice of the plaintiff, as was well known to the defendant.

2. On February 1, 1896, the said defendant enticed the said Oliver Orphan to leave, and the said Oliver Orphan left the employ of the plaintiff without his permission or consent.

Wherefore said plaintiff (concluding as in Form No. 2048).

[blocks in formation]

ARBITRATION AND AWARD.

BY HOWARD P. NASH.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
« ForrigeFortsett »