This was an action upon indentures of apprenticeship, in the usual
form, executed between the plaintiff and defendant; whereby the latter covenanted
amongst other things, for the service of his son with the former for the full
term of seven years.

       The defendant's son had absented himself, and continued absent from
the plaintiff's service before the term of his apprenticeship had expired. To
the declaration there were three pleas.

       The first two were immaterial to the question; and the third stated,
that the defendant's son had stayed with the plaintiff until he had attained
the age of twenty-one, and that then, the indentures having become void, he
quitted his master's service. To this plea there was a general demurrer and
joinder in the demurrer.

       Mr. ABRAHAM was heard in support of the demurrer, and maintained, that
an apprentice, not bound under the authority of an Act of Parliament, may
avoid his indentures on coming of age; but the question here was, whether the
father, having covenanted for the service of his son, as an apprentice, is liable
in an action for the breach of the covenant by the son?

       Sir Charles ABBOTT (Chief Justice) - "I am of opinion that the action
is maintainable against the father."

       Mr. Justice BEST. - "Who would take an apprentice if the indentures
might be avoided when the apprentice came of age, unless the father or guardian
becomes responsible? There is no doubt that the action will lie."

       Judgment for the plaintiff.