The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-08-09
NtserHsnp.
= f-.-sS<
COMMUNICATIONS.
Law CASE.
MALLORY yerJaJ MALLORY.

tbs was an atfioa Of covenant, commenced and
pr"'ecu,ed in the county of Hanover, wherein
a decifion took place Friday the 26th ultimo, in
the Iaid Court. As the cafe is the fr0 tbat have
heard of in this country, have thought that lor,
account of the circumstances for which the aston
was nltuted, ALTO of the trial, would not be un-
acceptable to the community under fpch imprelIions
and others is this ifatement offered.
The plaintiff in this fut it leems was bound while
lad by the Overlesrs Of the poor of the fid coun
y C,eing poor orphan) in puriuance of the law, TO
the defendant, who fhocr4ker by trade In
the entered into by the overers of the poor
on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant the de-
PENDANT ipulaes give he apprentice 70 bound, and
now the plaintiff in this action common education
and to teach him, the plaintiff in the and mynery
OF hoenaker and 70 pay him, at the expiration Of
his apprenticeship, twelve dollars.
The action, of which am about to give
tort detail, brough, for breach of the f4d CO.
venant 20 made by 'he overeers of the poor on be-
half of the plaintiff and the defendant, in this, to
wiz:
That the defendent failed TO give the plaintiff the
common education hipuated in the laid agreement
That nlead of keeping the plaintiff at work as
hoenaker, he frequently had him in his Selds at work.
from which he could gain no initruefions in the
trade, which he had undertaken and bound himieIf
70 teach the plaintiff and lay that eighteen months
before the expiration Of the plaintiffs apprenticeship,
the defendant makes transfer ale of the plaintiffs
iervices for valuable confederation to a Mr. Tay-
Tor gentleman who neither followed the trade
tina. the plaintiff was bound to the defendant to learn
ror knew any thing of it the eonfequcace OF which
that the plaintiff remained eighteen months rem
dering ervices tbe defendant without receiving any
ini(ructious from him by way Of remuneration for
rvices 70 rendered all of which charges aud breach
es of the covenant, were lubnantiated by evidence
The grounds Of defence as fet forth by the de-
PENDANT we're, q That he EDUCATION which he had
Stipulated give the plaintiff offered him. in the
holom Of the defendants family, to wit through
the medium of the de'endnt's wife, who it feems
f4lly competent the talk; which the plaintiff
refired to take from that fource; laying "that he
willied to go to fchool,P I'd That with regard TO
cepinr he plaintiff other avnca,inns oecafionaiiy
nitcad Of Keeping him work fhoenaler the
trade he had undertaken to teach him he thought
he junifahle in 70 doing Thirdly and laHy
that the iale which he made Of the plaintiffs fervices
with his content and that at the tire Of doing
!, the plaintiff was thought better hoemaker than
hmfef, and confequoBtIy could derive no infnfma-
ton from the defendant-The grounds Of defense as
nated above were alto proven.
Perhaps it would be as ynjuh, as it may be
W. thought prefumptuous in me, to atten,p. to Do
that iuaice which is due to lone Of the honorable
Advocates who appeared in dis trial never before
in any cafe did ever fec ia-n dlp-y % juvenile IA
Tents az on this occaiiou
The council for the plaintiff were Melrs Nethani-
el Pope, jlnr. and Lewis Harvie the Latter 81 which
gentlemen opened the CAFE the part Of the plain
siT in 4 manner tina, did honor to hmfelf and iuGice
to his client; it with peculiar plea!urc wnc.
I'd his ora'o:y this occafuD, which did flow with
undated rapifiy, and contemplated the day as not
frr 1Hirt, when the talents Of this young Cusran
viii euttle him to thc fsn place in his eountrys ho-
nor
MIR Fredcricl, Harris on The part cf tbc defend.
nj replied to she able and pathetic addrcfs Of Mr.