Conant v. Raymond
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was a motion by the plaintiff for a new trial, founded on exceptions taken to the opinion of the Court, expressed on the trial below, and which were allowed, and certified to this Court as follows: Action on the case, for harbouring and employing one Aaron Manning, Jr. an indented apprentice to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was a motion by the plaintiff for a new trial, founded on exceptions taken to the opinion of the Court, expressed on the trial below, and which were allowed, and certified to this Court as follows: Action on the case, for harbouring and employing one Aaron Manning, Jr. an indented apprentice to the plaintiff. On the trial before the jury, the plaintiff gave in evidence the indentures of apprenticeship, regularly executed by the father of the appren tice, the apprentice himself, and the master, by which the apprentice was bound faithfully to serve the plaintiff till the 16th day of…
1Opinion of the CourtHutchinson, J.
delivered the follo^^Hpnion of the Court.
The charge of the court to the jury, anothe refusal to charge as requested by the plaintiff’s counsel, present one and the same question for the decision of this court. They are counterparts of each other, or nearly so.
But the counsel are not perfectly agreed upon a preliminary question, which ought first to be disposed of, to wit: whether this be an action to recover the wages of the apprentice while in the employ of the defendant 1 Upon this point the plaintiff’s counsel are correct in their premises, but not so in their conclusion. They are correct,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Elwell v. MartinSupreme Court of Vermont · 1859
- Butterfield v. AshleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850