Case ID: dc_4/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Codet", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Smith, an Apprentice, v. Jonathan Elliot.
    In the indentures of an apprentice, hound out by the Orphans’ Court, it is not necessary to state that the apprentice was present in court. It will be presumed, unless the contrary appears.
    Petition, by an apprentice, to be discharged from his indentures.
    
      Mr. Brent, for the petitioner,
    contended that the indentures were void because they do not state that the boy was present in the Orphans’ Court when he was bound out as an orphan child, under the Maryland Act of 1793, c. 45.
   The Codet

(nem. con.) was of opinion that it was not necessary to state that fact in the indenture; as it will be presumed that he was present, unless the contrary should be proved.

The complaint was that the boy was not well fed and clothed ; but the Court thought that the complaint was not supported by the petitioner’s witnesses, and dismissed the petition, without hearing the defendant’s witnesses.