BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
John Gardner v Smith and Wardrobe. [1775] Mor 593 (13 July 1775)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1775/Mor0200593-009.html Cite as:
[1775] Mor 593
Deemed sufficient implement of the obligation on the matter to instruct his apprentice, while the master himself was casually absent, that the work was carried on by experienced journey men.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In November 1771, an indenture was entered into between John Smith, for whom John Wardrobe was cautioner, on the one part, and John Gardner on the other part, whereby Smith became bound to Gardner as his apprentice in the art and trade of a Wright, in Glasgow, for three years, and Gardner obliged himself to instruct him in that trade; but Smith having left his master about a year after the commencement of the apprenticeship, and the indenture containing a mutual penalty of five pounds; for that sum Gardner caused charge the apprentice and his cautioner.
Their objection to the validity of the indenture itself having been repelled, they set up another, in consequence of which the Lord Ordinary, before answer, allowed them a proof of the facts; and, upon considering the proof, pronounced an interlocutor, to which the Court adhered, on a reclaiming bill and answers:
“Repels the defence, That the charger having given up in a great measure his business of a Wright, and betaken himself to the business of a smuggler, seldom attended his shop, and took no case to instruct his apprentice, in respect that it is proved, that although the charger, in consequence of his marriage with an illicit trader, did, for a time, engage in an illicit trade, yet the work in the shop was daily carried on by experienced journeymen; and that it is not proved that the apprentice was deprived of daily instruction by reason of the casual absence, of his master.”
Act. Ilay Campbell.Alt. Pat. Murray.Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 33. Wallace, No 179. p. 97.
*** Here, there was no formal complaint entered, nor protest taken by the apprentice, before his desertion; which had great weight with the Court.
