« ForrigeFortsett »
intending craftily and subtly to deceive and defraud the said 701m Doe in this particular, hath not yet paid the said twenty pounds, or any part thereof to the said Yolm 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 H'estminster aforesaid, by the said 701m Doe was requested, but he to pay the same hath hitherto altogether refused, and still doth refuse, to the said 701.7100,’ his damage of thirty pounds, and therefore he brings his suit, etc. Samuel Short
Pledges to prosecute and
.l/ark/mm and Le Blane. Trinity Term, 28 Geo. [I].
Devonsbirc, to wit. 701m 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 yoseplz Hunt on thefirst of 7une, 1788, at Barnstable in the said county of Devonslu're 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 clay of j'une, lived and resided with the said plaintifi‘ his master; yet the said Rickard Roe the now defendant, well knowing the premises aforesaid, but contriving and fraudulently and maliciously intending wrongfully to injure and damnify the said 701m in this respect, and craftily and subtly to deceive and defraud the said 701m 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 _flrst day of Yune, 1788, at Barnstable wrongfully, injuriously, and unjustly, and without the license and consent, and against the will of the said 701m, persuaded, procured, and enticed the said Yoseplz so then and still being the apprentice and servant of the said Yolm, to absent himself and depart from the service of the said 701m, to wit, at Barnstable; on pretext and by means of which said persuasion, procuration, and enticement, he the said yoseplz, the apprentice and servant of the said Yo/zn, 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 and injuriously departed and absented himself from the said service of the said 701m and continued absent and apart from his said service for a long time, to wit, from thence hitherto, whereby the said yolzn 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 thefirst day of ffune, A.D. 1788, at Barnstable, in said Devonsnirc, one other Yea-cpl: 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, ('eparted 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 yoseplz, the last-mentioned apprentice, to be the servant and apprentice of the said plaintiff as aforesaid, then and there received the said Yoseplz the said lastmentioned apprentice, and wholly refused to deliver him to the said 701m his master. although so to do, to wit, on the 2d day of Yunc, A.D. 1788, and often times since, at Barnstable aforesaid, was requested by the said 70111:, but he the said defendant unlawfully detained and entertained and kept the said Yoscpk the said last-mentioned apprentice, so being the apprentice of the said 70/31: from his said service from the first of Yune, 1788, for a long space of time. to wit. from thence hitherto, whereby the said 70/01 wholly lost the profit, benefit, and advantage which he, by reason of the service of the said 70881)]! 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 Barnstaolc aforesaid, to the damage of the said 701m Doc £200, and therefore he brings his suit, etc. Samuel Slzort
1. See also a precedent in: Chit. Pl. 317; 2 Rev. Swift’s Dig. 523.
Pledges to prosecute 5 and
2. Complaint or Petition under the Codes.
Form No. 2053.
(Commencing as in Form 1V0. 9048. and continuing down to '2)
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).
32 Volume II.
ARBITRATION AND A\VARD.
BY HOWARD P. NASH.
2 E. of F. P.—'; 33 Volume I’