Case Name: John Jones v. James Mills
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1830-12
Citations: 2 Dev. 540
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Jones v. James Mills,
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 540–541

Head Matter:
John Jones v. James Mills,
From Jones.
In an action for seducing a coloured apprentice, bound by the County Court, the Defendant cannot avail himself of any defect in the bond required by the act of 1801 (ifee. c. $83) not to remove the ap. prentice out of the county, nor of the fact that no such bond has been executed.
Case, for seducing from the service of the Plaintiff two coloured boys, who were bound to him by tlie County Court of Jones. The Plaintiff having made out his case by proof of the indentures, and of the actual service of the apprentices, the Defendant produced a blank paper, signed by the Plaintiff and two sureties, intended for the bond required by the art of 1801,which requires persons, to whom children of colour are bound, not to remove such apprentices from the county where they are bound, and proved that this was the only compliance by the Plaintiff with the requisitions of that act.
His Honor Judge Donneux. charged the jury, that as the Plaintiff had executed the indentures of appr entice-ship, and taken the boys under his care, the indentures were obligatory upon him, although be had not given bond, as required by the act of 180J, and that the Defendant, who was a stranger, could not avail himself of any irregularity or defect in the bond, as a defence to this action.
A verdict was returned for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant appealed.
No Counsel appeared for either party in this Court.
Dec. 1830.

Opinion:
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.