[indenture – apprentice services, action to recover – co-partnership, dissolution]

Johnson and Hayes v. Rollins

Supreme Court of Van Diemen’s Land, In Banco

Pedder C.J Montagu J., 14 May 1841

Source: Hobart Town Advertiser, 21 May 1841

Messrs. Mathew, Johnson, and Hayes, coachmakers, in partnership had bound a youth named James Rollins, by indenture (produced) to serve them for seven years, during which time he was to be instructed in the business.  If the co-partnership should in the interim be dissolved, he was to be taken by such of the firm as should afterwards be agreed on, and with them to finish his apprenticeship.  Sometime after Mr. Matthew retired, and the boy was handed over, without renewing the agreement, to the two plaintiffs. – Rollins, however, bolted, and it was to recover his services, during the unexpired portion of the seven years, that the present action was brought.

The Chief Justice said, that by the indenture it could be seen that and agreement had been entered into between Matthew and Co. and James Rollins for seven years, and that a proviso had been made for the transfer of the youth in a case of dissolution of partnership; but as Matthews’ name stands affixed, there should have been a new agreement made when the firm was broken, and much as the good of the Colony demands that such documents as these be strictly enforce, I can but give a verdict for the defendant.