
    GENERAL SESSIONS.
    NEW YORK,
    NOVEMBER, 1823.
    
      In the matter of William Hunt, Apprentice.
    
    
      Appeal.
    
    
      auere, is the business of an equescrian, so far as it lates to prentices, tr bonos snores or not or not
    The apprentice in this case was bound to John Rogers, appellant, to serve until he should arrive at the age of 16 ' years, to learn the art, trade and mystery of an equestrian. The apprentice, after serving some time with his master, left him, without his consent. The master applied to the justices of the police, and thereupon the said justices issued a warrant, upon which the said apprentice was apprehended.
    The matter being heard- before the justices, they discharged the apprentice, upon the ground that the business of an equestrian was not a legal and proper calling. The master appealed to this court, under the” statute relating to appeals. 1 R. L. p. 135, s. 13.
    J. H. Hedly, Esq., counsel for the master,
    contended, that inasmuch as the business of an equestrian was not contra bonos mores, it was in that respect legal, and also, as the like institutions were licensed in .some of the cities of the union, and as it was in contemplation to license them in this city, it was therefore to be inferred that they were acknowledged to be lawful. He cited 3 Vin. Abr. 31. Domiuus Rex v. Gately, Salk. 471.
   The court decided that the prisoner should return to his master until the further order of the court.  