
    Mass vs Rogers.
    Appeal from Baltimore county court. This was an action of covenant, on an indenture of apprenticeship entered into by the defendant below, (now appellee,) the theta master, in favour of the plaintiff, (the appellant,) as an apprentice. ’ The declaration states, “that whereas by a certain indenture made on the thirteenth day of July, eighteen hundred and ten, at the county aforesaid, between the' ¡said Mass, by the name of Thomas Jackson Mass, by his mother, Jinn Mass, of the one part, and James Mosher, Robert Carey Bong and William Gwyhri, of the other part, the counterpart of the said indenture sealed with the seals' of the' said James, William ¿rid Robert, the said Mass brings here' into court, the date whereof is' the day and year aforesaid,' it was witnessed, that the s.aid Mass, at his own free and voluntary will, and’with the consent of his mother, placed and bound himself apprentice to the said James, Robert and William, to learn the aft and mystery of spinning wool, and weaving and dressing woollen cloth, as by the said' indenture, relation being thereto had, will more fully appear; and the said Mass further saith, that jn virtue of a judgment and order of the court of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery for Raltimon county, duly made and passed at the January term of the said court, in the year eighteen hundred and fifteen, as by the records of said court, reference being thereto had, will more fully appear, Ihe said Mass was, according to the act of assembly in such case made and provided, released from his said indenture with the consent of the said James, Robert and Uilliam, and by the said court the said Mass, who would be fifteen years of age' on the thirteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and fifteen, was bound to the said Rogers, by and with the consent of the said Rogers, until the said Mass should attain the age of twenty-one years, to learn the trade of a saddler and harness maker, the said Rogers to teach him, the said Mass, the said trade, and to find him in sufficient meat, drink, apparel and necessaries suitable for an apprentice, and twelve months night schooling. ’ And the said Mass in fact saith, that the said Rogers, in pursuance of the judgment and order aforesaid, and his consent aforesaid, to the conditions and terms aforesaid, did receive the said Mass into his service as such apprentice, on the terms’ and conditions in the said judgment and order aforesaid;’and the said Mass avers, that by virtue of the said judgment and order aforesaid, and the consent of the said Rogers, he did enter and waa received by the said Rogers into his service as such his apprentice, in form aforesaid, and into the house of the said Rogers, and did stay and continue in th® service of the said Rogers until lie attained to the age of twenty-one- years, to wit, until the fourteenth day of April, eighteen hundred’ and twenty-one. And tlie said Mass further saith, that although he, the said Mass, always from the time'of rendering the judgment and order as aforesaid, until the fourteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and twenty-one, as aforesaid, well and faithfully did, performed and fulfilled, every thing in the said judgment and order "contained, on his part and behalf to be performed and fulfilled, yet that the said Rogers, during all or any part, of the said term of service of the said Mass as aforementioned, did not teach or instruct, or cause to be well and sufficiently taught and instructed, the said Mass in the said trade of a saddler and harness, maker, after the best way and manner that lie could, according to the form and effect of the said judgment and order as aforesaid, but thereby wholly failed - and mads default, contrary to the provisions, conditions, and effect of Ihst, said judgment and order as aforesaid, and of the covenant of the said Rogers so made in that behalf as aforesaid. And the said Mass further saith, that the said Rogers did not, during the said term of service of the said Mass as aforementioned, ñnd him the said Mass twelve months night schooling, but refused so to do, contrary to the provisions, conditions and effects of the said judgment and order as aforesaid, and his said covenant so made in that behalf as' aforesaid; and so the said Mass saith that the said Rogers (although often thereto requested) hath not kept with the said Mass his covenants in manner aforesaid made, but hath broken the same, and to keep the same with the said Mass hath hitherto wholly refused, to Hie carnage of the said Muss, in the sum of live hundred don-ws current money, and therefore he brings iiis suit,’' &c.
    
      
      M was. duty) bound an apprentice to J a nd others, in the, city of Baltimore He afterwards applied to the court of Oyer and Terminer, &e ibr Baltimore county, with the consent <>f J M, and others, to be released from his indentures, where lie was released; and with his own; consent,- and the’ consent ,of J i?, that court pass thi9 order — “It is adjudged and ordered, that JJf, be and lie is hereby bound to JR, until lie is 21 years of age, to learn the trade of,” &e. In an action of covenant by M against J R, for a breach of this ovdei — Reid, that M was not entitled to recover
    
      The judgment and order of the court of oyer and terrnL ner of Baltimore county, mention ed and referred to in the declaration, was exhibited, and it states thai at a court of oyer and terminer, &c. for Baltimore county, in January 1815, the following petition was presented to that court, “To the honourable the justices of the court of oyer and terminer and gaol delivery lor Baltimore county,, rihe petition of Thomas Jackson Mass, by Jinn a^uos, his mother and next friend, humbly showeth, that your petitioner was heretofore, on the thirtieth day of ouiy bound apprentice, to James Mosher, Robert Carey Bong and Pulliam Gvjynn, to learn the art and mysreiy 01 spinning wool and Weaving and dressing woollen cloth, as by a copy of his indenture will appear. Your petitioner siat^s, that the said Mosher, Long and Gwynn, have declined carrying on the said trade, or mystery; and your petitioner, from experience, finds the said traue uusuited to his genius and injurious to his health; he therefore prays that he may be released from the said indentures, and bound to another person to learn a different and more suitable trade, and he will pray.
    
      Thomas J. Moss., by Jinn Massy
    
    
      Mosher, Long and Gwynn, by a writing under their bands and seals, consented to release, and did release Mass from all claims as their apprentice; and the following instrument of writing was then exhibited to the court: “I f^gree and consent that Thomas Jackson Mass, who wid bo fifteen yeara of age on Ihe thirteenth flay of April next,' iiltall bound to me until he atlaios to the age of twenty-we yt .rs, to learn the trade of a saddler and harness maker, . , . . and Í bind myself to teach him the said trade, and to find him in sufficient meat, drink, apparel and necessaries, suitable for an apprentice, and twelvemonths night schooling. John Rogers.”
    
    Whereupon it was ordered and adjudged by the court;’ that the said’ Thomas Jackson Mass bo. and he is hereby discharged free his indentures to the aforesaid James Mosher, Robert C..Lopg ami William Gioynn. _It is also further oldered and adjudged By the court, that the said Thomas Jackson Mass, he and he is hereby bound to John Rogers until he attains to the age of twenty-one years, to learn the trade of a saddler and harness maker* and the said John Rogers to teach him the said trade, and to find him in sufficient meat, drink, apparel and necessaries, suitable! for an apprentice, and twelve months night schooling, &c.
    The defendant craved oyer of the indenture, and it was exhibited in the following words: “This indenture wilnesweth, that Jacob Mass halh bound his son Thomas Jackson Mass, aged ten years the thirtieth day of April last past, as apprentice to James Mosher, Robert Carey 7,ong and William Gioynn, to learn the art or trade of spinning, weaving and dressing woollen cloth, and to serve the said James Mosher, Robert Carey Long and William Gwytm, and the. survivors and survivor of them, until the said Thomas Jackson shall attain to the age of twenty-one years; and the said Jacob 3tass and Thomas Jackson Mass do severally promise and agree to and with the said James Mosher, Robert Carey Long and William Gioynn, that Iks, the said Thomas Jackson Mass, shall during the said term of his apprenticeship, faithfully and obediently serve his said masters in all things, doing his duty as a faithful apprentice. And ihe said James Mosher, Robert Carey Long and William Gioynn, do promise, covenant and agree, to and with the said Jacob 3iass and Thomas Jackson Mass, that they will use their best endeavours, during the time the said Thomas Jackson Mass shall continue in their service, to teach him, or cause him to be taught, the said art or trade of spinning, weaving and dressing wool and woollen cloth, and to read and write, and also that they will provide and furnish for him, meat, drink, clothing and other necessaríes suitable for an apprentice, and at the expiration of his apprenticeship cústomary freedom dues. In witness whereof the parties have hereto set their hands and seals this thirtieth day. of July, eighteen hundred and ten.,” Signed and sealed by Jacob and Thomas J. Masé, and by Mosher\ Long, and Gtvynn, in the presence of, and acknowledged before, a justice of the peace for Baltimore county.
    The defendant then demurred generally to the declaration, which demurrer the county court rilled good; and the plaintiff appealed to this court!
    The case was,argued before Buchanan, Oil'. J. Earle,' Stephen! and Dorsey, J.
    
      Mitcliell, for, the Appellant,
    to show that the proceedings Of the court of oyer and terminer were legally obligatory on the defendant — dhat that court had jurisdiction of the subject matter, and that their proceedings were in due form, referred to the acts of 1799, ch. 58, s. 9, 12; 1793, ch. 45, s. 7, and ch. 57, s. 17. Allen vs. Dundas, 3 T. R. 125. Morrell vs. Dickey, 1 Johns. Chan. Rep. 156; and 1 Chitty’s Plead. 405. And to show that dn action of covenant could be maintained in this case, he cited 1 Chitty’s Plead. 111, 112, 113. 3 Com. Dig. tit. Debt, (B.) 367. Ibid tit. Covenant, (A 1,) 256. Co. Litt. 231. a. Bret vs. Cumberland, Cro. Jac. 399, 521; and Ascue vs. Hollingsworth, Cro. Eliz. 355, 494, 544.
    
      Glenn, for the Appellee,
    contended, i; That an action of covenant could not be sustained on a record. Ife cited t Chitty’s Plead. 109, 113, 114; and Hollingsworth vs. Ascue, Cro. Eliz. 355. That if the action could be maintained, the court, id which the record was made; must have jurisdiction of the subject; and that here tb>e court of oyer and terminer had no jurisdiction, and being a court of limited jurisdiction, the speciál jurisdiction must appear on the face of the record. He cited Bristow vs. Wright, 2 Doug. 667, 668. Shrivers vs. Wilson, 5 Harr. & Johns. 130. The King vs. Gately, 2 Salk. 471. pl. 4. 5 Mod. 139, S. C. 3 Vin. Ab. 26. 4 Bac. Ab. 557, 577. Acts of Assembly 1793, ch. 45, s. 2, 4, 6, 7; 1791, ch. 21, s. 2; 1794, ch. 47, and 1799, ch. 44, s. 3. He insisted also upon the variance between the indenture declared upon, and that of which, oyer was given.
   judgment affirmed..  