Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1863-11-18
IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECISION
The Relation of Master and Apprentice.

In a case in the Quarter Session. which
had been heard before Judge Ludlow,
who delivered the following opinion
Commonwealth ex. rel &C. u.s. Paul T.
Bowen. Opinion by Ludlow, j.:
The apprentice, the defendant in this
case, has been bound by the assent Of his
mother. to the firm of Cox. Whiteman &
Cox in order to learn the trade, AIT and
mystery Of Stove Moulding" the firm
covenant, lat such times as their touu-
dries shall be in blast" to give him en-
ployment, and to pay him SO so per week
for the time he shall lie at work for the
first three months, for the first eleven
months thereafter one-half OF Journey
mans prices by the piece, for the next
fourteen months tve-eighths journey
mans prices by the piece. and for the
balance of his term he shall receive wages
AT the rate Of three-fyurths journey 5
prices 10y The piece
At "A glance it will he observed that this
instrument is a very peculiar one. as the
firm OF Wbiteman 4 Cox are not to be
responsible " for any acts done or commit
ted by the said apprentice during such
times as he is not at work, nor are they
TO Ue under any expense for medicine or
medical attendance, it being fully under
stood that the said apprentice is under
the guardianship Of his mother"
There seems to be in this indentdre 10
express covenant for maintenance nor do
the masters agree to give to TIE appren-
tice any education. lf il stands The test
OF a legal investigation, it will introduce
new system apprenticeship, allogeth ~
different from that now in use. AR in
many respects, in our jud-r,.nt yerv
Objectionable, especially I.c tbree reasons.
FIRST, There IS no Coyenant in tins lnstru-
ment mem. LOT SepCcnng, and it has been long
S,i'oe 81 se.'iGu: Com. vs.. Perrott, Brightly's
W -, p. lS9, that an indeniure which
does not contain this covenant is void ;
true, this principle is in measure to be
qualified, if it shall appear TO the Court
that the apprentice has received sufficient
education, before ne was bound to serve.
See | Rawle, l9l, Com. vs.. Leeds. In
this case, however, the only evidence pro
duced upon this point consisted OF an ad-
mission 10y the defendant that he had
been over a year at school, aud bad got so
far that he was studying geography, when
be had to leave to 90 TO work" This
Court would not be justified in sanclioning
the doctrine that a young man between
seventeen and eighteen wears OF age had
received sufficient education, when the
evidence conclusiyely proves that he had
been at school but a little over year, and
had just commenced the study OF geogra-
ply. These masters and their apprentices
will hereafter see the necessity which in
cllnes the Court to look with anxious
solloltude TO the proper education Of the
rising generation, for upon their intelli-
gence depends the future prosperity rot
only OF the young men, but of The Com
monwealth and nation.
Second, There is another Objectionable
feature in this indenture which has at
tracted our notice. There is no express
covenant for maintenance; the appren-
tice is to receive so much per week. and
then by the piece, aud the mother who,
ait is understood" shall be his guardian,
must take care Of him il he becomes sick,
and shall also provide him with medicine.
We do not overlook the adjudged case