through a contribution from Google.
Case No. 6,520.
HINES v. HEWITT.
[4 Cranch, C. C. 471.]2
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Oct. Term, 1834.
APPRENTICE—BINDING—WHAT CONSTITUTES.
An entry on the minutes of the orphans' court in Alexandria, “that Peyton Hines be 205bound apprentice to Peter Hewitt,” does not constitute a lawful binding.
[Cited in Bell v. English, Case No. 1,250.]
This was a petition to be discharged from the service of Peter Hewitt, who claimed the petitioner as his apprentice. There was an entry on the minutes of the orphans' court of an order, “that Peyton Hines be bound apprentice to Peter Hewitt”. This was the only authority shown by the respondent for holding the petitioner; and it was stated by Mr. Moore, the register of the orphans' court, that it was conformable to the usual practice of that court, and that no indentures were actually executed.
THE COURT (THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent) decided that it was not a lawful binding, and discharged the boy.
See the case of Bell v. English [Case No. 1,250], Oct. term, 1833.
2 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.