
    Morris Studer v. Glenn.
    The father, with the consent of his son, fifteen years old, hound him to Glenn, as an apprentice. The son signed and sealed the indentures, but was not named as a party therein, nor was there any covenant on his part. The Court refused to discharge him.
    
      Mr. Hewitt
    
    had obtained a rale on the defendant, to show cause why Morris Studer should not be discharged from the service of the defendant, as an apprentice; at the return of which rule, he contended that the indenture was void, because there was no covenant on the part of the son. That the father could not bind him without his consent; and his signing and sealing the indentures, which contained no covenant on his part, was no evidence of his consent. The law of Virginia requires that he should be taught reading and writing; but, by these indentures, he is only to be taught ciphering. The King v. Inhabitants of Arnesley, 3 Barn. & Aid. 584; Mary Highton’s case, 8 East, 25; Dow^s case, 8 Johnson, 328.
   The Couet (nem. con., but Ceanch, C. J., doubting,) refused to discharge the apprentice, he having been fifteen years old at the date of the indentures, and having signed and sealed them, although they contain no covenant on his part.  