
    Artemas Emery vs. Albert Kempton.
    A father may recover compensation for services performed by his minor son, in unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors, if he did not know the character of those services, while his son was performing them.
    Action of contract, to recover for services rendered to the defendant by the plaintiff’s minor son.
    At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Bishop, J. it was in evidence that the defendant w;as the keeper of two oyster saloons in Lowell, at which intoxicating liquors were at all times sold; that the sale of intoxicating liquors was a part of the business of the defendant at those places; that the plaintiff’s son was employed in such sale; and that the defendant was not licensed or authorized to sell intoxicating liquors. The defendant contended that for such services the plaintiff could not recover.
    The plaintiff requested the judge to instruct the jury, that if the plaintiff was ignorant of the nature and character of the services, while they were being performed by his son, he was entitled to recover. But the judge instructed the jury, that K if the services were rendered in the business of selling intoxicating liquors, and other things connected with and in furtherance of such business, the plaintiff could not recover, although he was ignorant of the character of those services, while they were being performed.” The jury having found a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
    
      J. W. Beard, for the plaintiff.
    
      B. F. Butler, for the defendant.
   Shaw, C. J.

This defence is founded on a well settled rule of law, that the law will not lend its aid to carry into effect any agreement made for the purpose of accomplishing things expressly prohibited by law. It will therefore allow no action for the recovery of compensation for doing unlawful acts. The law is clear; the only question is, whether it applies to this case. If the plaintiff did not place his son in the service of the. defendant, for the purpose of selling liquor illegally, more especially if he did not consent to it or know of it, then he is chargeable with no violation of law; and being by the general rule of law entitled to compensation for the services of his son, the defence is not maintained, and the jury should have been so instructed. Exceptions sustained.  