-
Hall, Judge. The Judge was certainly correct in stating to the jury, that as the apprentices were regularly bound out to the Plaintiff, by indentures regularly executed by the Plaintiff and the presiding magistrate, according to the act of 1762 (Rere. c. 69) the Defendant was not at liberty in his defence to avail himself of any defect in the bond required by the act of 1801. (Rev. c. 583J Taking it for granted that the bond under tho latter act is so defective, that it is not obligatory upon the obligors, the case then stands as if no such bond was given. It is 1hen the duty of the Court to notify the master of the apprentices to appear, and give bond and security in the sum of áü250, not to remove such apprentices out of said County. In case default is made by not giving such bond, it then becomes the duty of the Court to bind such apprentices to some other person_ But whilst the original indentures are in force, and before such bund is given, tine apprentices are not tó be considered as turned loose, and fit subjects to be seduced and employed by any stranger, that thinks proper to interfere. On him there is no obligation to do them justice.
Per Curiam.- — Let the judgment of the Court below he affirmed.
Document Info
Citation Numbers: 13 N.C. 540
Judges: Hall
Filed Date: 12/5/1830
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024