novo, which he is hereby at liberty to do on or before the T. T. 1847. FRAZER บ. MONT GOMERY. O'BRIEN v. CHADWICK. J. C. LOWRY, on behalf of the plaintiff, moved that he be at liberty to the June 7. Where proceedings having been stayed until the costs of a former notice of trial are paid, the defendant, though called costs on, neglects to tax his costs, the plaintiff now will be allowed to serve a fresh so. F. Meagher, for the defendant, stated that a notice had been served by the defendant, authorising the plaintiff to proceed to trial if he pleased. PIGOT, C. B. Let the plaintiff be at liberty to serve notice of trial, upon giving an undertaking to pay the costs within four days after taxation. Ordered accordingly; the defendant to pay the costs of the notice of trial, upon giving an undertaking to pay the costs of the former notice within such time after taxation as the Court may direct. T. T. 1847. Exch. of Pleas. June 7, 8. J. B S. was apprenticed to an attorney STEWART, Petitioner; DAVIS, Respondent. T. K. LOWRY moved on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent be ordered to deliver up the indenture of apprenticeship of John who was in partnership Barnsley Stewart to the petitioner, without the payment of the sum the of £100 demanded, as in petition stated by the respondent, or any the inden- part thereof, and to give his consent to the assignment of the said tures being to with the re covenants of serve the part- John Barnsley Stewart's indenture of apprenticeship to John Suffern, nership, and the apprentice gentleman, one of the attorneys, in case the Benchers of the Honorby a bill of ex- able Society of King's Inns shall permit him to take such assignment; change drawn and that it be referred to the proper officer to ascertain and report the firm and how much of the sum of £195, paid to the co-partnership of James accepted by and William Davis as an apprentice fee with the said John Barnsley in the name of the appren tice's father; his master having died, the surviving partner claim Stewart ought to be refunded, and that the same may be accordingly refunded by the said respondent to the petitioner, as the mother and ed the benefit guardian of the said John B. Stewart, in order to be applied by her of the appren tice's contract, in payment of the fee required on such assignment. and refused, though he had It appeared that on or about the 29th of April 1846 articles of himself no va apprentice, either to deli cancy for an apprenticeship were executed, whereby John Barnsley Stewart was bound to James Davis, one of the attorneys, to serve him and his co-partner, the respondent in this matter, for five years; that there was paid by Robert Stewart, father of the apprentice, to the firm of ver up the indentures or consent to their being assigned except to a person named James and William Davis, on the execution of the indenture, an by himself, apprentice fee of about £195; that Robert Stewart, father of John unless he was sum. paid a certain B. Stewart, died about the 19th of June last, leaving the petitioner The Court, his administratrix (and to whom administration was granted) guarupon the peti- dian of his son; that at the time of J. B. Stewart's being bound, tion of the ap prentice's mo. James Davis had, as petitioner believed, two other apprentices, ther and guar dian, ordered and William Davis the respondent had also two apprentices. It the respondent to deliver up the indentures in order to their being assigned, and it was referred to the officer to report how much of the apprentice fee should be refunded by the respondent, although it was stated upon affidavit that he had never received any portion of it.. appeared also that on or about the 20th of March last James Davis died, and that shortly after his death the petitioner called on the respondent relative to her son's apprenticeship, when he informed her that he would assign her son as an apprentice to a gentleman, an attorney residing in Dublin, named Cusack, whom she had never before heard of; she at once stated she would not consent to this, and requested William Davis to consent to her son being assigned to another attorney or house, when he stated he would not allow her son to be assigned to any other attorney unless she paid him £100 in addition to the £195 already paid to the co-partnership. The petition also stated that petitioner had applied to John Suffern, gentleman, of Belfast, one of the attorneys, who had consented to take her son for the remainder of the term of five years, on payment of a fair proportion of the sum of £195 paid to the copartnership as an apprentice fee. The respondent, in answer to the petition, filed an affidavit, in which he admitted the binding of John Barnsley Stewart as alleged in the petition, except that the consideration money was expressed on the face of the indentures to be £200, and admitted the fact of James Davis having at the time two other apprentices, but denied that he himself had more than one when Stewart was bound to his brother; he stated also, that he never received one shilling of the apprentice fee of John Barnsley Stewart, or of any of the other apprentices bound to James Davis, as it was the express agreement between him and James Davis that all apprentice fees and all profits connected with the Belfast business should be paid and belong to James Davis alone, James Davis residing permanently in Belfast, and the deponent residing in Dublin, and being as to James Davis's Belfast business more in the character of an agent or correspondent than a partner; and that under the terms of the agreement between the deponent and James Davis, deponent was only to be entitled to the fees of any of the apprentices who should be bound to the deponent, and should serve the entire of their time to deponent in Dublin; and that he was not to have any share in the profits of the business belonging to the Belfast office, but only to be repaid T. T. 1847. STEWART v. DAVIS. T. T. 1847. such necessary outlay as he should be obliged to make in relation Exch.of Pleas. to the business of the Belfast office. STEWART บ. DAVIS. That J. B. Stewart did not, for the first time, enter the office of James Davis on the execution of the indentures of apprenticeship; but that from the 11th of November 1844 he acted in the office as an apprentice, having an opportunity of receiving the same instructions as the other apprentices, and which he believed he did receive, and that he continued so to act until the 5th of February 1845, and afterwards from the 24th of March 1846 until the 2nd day of April last, when he left the office without permission or giving any intimation of his intention. The affidavit further stated, that deponent's brother James Davis having died on the 20th of March last, leaving a widow and seven children, all under twelve years of age, deponent thereupon made arrangements to reside in Belfast and carry on the business there. That on the 13th of March last Mrs. J. Henderson and Miss J. B. Henderson, the grandmother and aunt of John B. Stewart, called on him and inquired what he was going to do with the apprentices who were bound to James Davis; upon which he informed her that he had made arrangements, when in Dublin, to have two of them assigned, but that they should remain in the office with deponent; and that as soon as he could, he would have them re-assigned to himself, as he was most anxious and willing to have all the apprentices sworn and admitted under himself; and that such arrangement appeared to give satisfaction to them (Mrs. Henderson and Miss Henderson). That on the 6th of April last the petitioner, accompanied by Miss Henderson, called on deponent respecting John B. Stewart's apprenticeship, when he repeated what he had before stated to Mrs. Henderson; upon which Mrs. Stewart said she would not allow her son to remain with deponent, and that her mother had no authority from her on the subject, at least upon that occasion; and upon another interview about the 9th of April, he stated he would speak to his brother's executrix on the subject of J. B. Stewart's removal from the office. The deponent further stated that, from the length of time which J. B. Stewart was in his brother's office, and the pains taken to instruct him in his business, he conceived there should be some consideration given to the executrix of his brother, and for his brother's children, for giving up his indentures or the assignment of them; and that acting on that belief he had stated to the petitioner that if £100 were given for the benefit of James Davis's minor children, his (J. D.'s) executrix would at once consent to the assign'ment of the indentures; and also that he had received no notice of the intention of petitioner to apply to the Court. An affidavit was made by Mr. Suffern, stating that at Mrs. Stewart's request he had consented to take her son as an apprentice for the remainder of the term in his indenture, on being paid a proportion of the fee; and that he accordingly wrote to Mr. Wm. Davis enclosing a consent that the indenture should be assigned to him, and requesting Mr. William Davis to have it signed by the executors of the late Mr. Davis, and returned; in reply to which he received the following letter: "DEAR SIR-Previous to giving any reply to your note of the "20th, or applying to the executors of my late brother on the sub"ject of the consent furnished by you, I wish to be informed upon "what terms Mrs. Stewart wishes to take her son out of this office, "and from me, as surviving partner, to whom he was also bound to "WILLIAM DAVIS. 66 serve. Yours truly, T. T. 1847. STEWART บ. DAVIS. “29th April, 1847.” In reply to which Mr. Suffern wrote on the 1st of May, stating that there could be "no difficulty on the score of terms, which, "as usual, will be as follows: if five years pay £200, what should "ten months pay? or in round numbers, Mrs. Stewart, on behalf of "her son, will require a return of £160 odd of the premium paid." To this communication he received the following answer :"1st May, 1847. "DEAR SIR-In reply to yours of this date, you omit to answer "the latter part of my note of the 29th ultimo. Mrs. Stewart's son was bound to serve me as well as my brother. I made every arrangement previous to the first day of Term, and without my consent he left the office. On the part of the executors and my |