Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was an action of damages for breach of indenture at the instance of Adam Gunn, painter and ghazier. The defender, William Goodall, was alleged to have wrongfully deserted the pursuer's service, and to be liable in damages, and in the penalty in the indenture. Adam Goodall, his father, the other defender, was alleged to be jointly liable as cautioner under the indenture. The defence was, bad usage of the apprentice by the pursuer's son.

It being admitted that an indenture between the pursuer and William Goodall was entered into, and that Adam Goodall was cautioner for his son, the questions in the issues were—

1st, Whether William Goodall had wrongfully deserted his master's service, and was liable, along with his father, in damages.

2d, Whether Adam Goodall, as cautioner for his son, was indebted to the pursuer in £20, the penalty under the indenture.

There was a counter-issue, Whether the pursuer agreed to pass from the indenture.

A witness for the pursuer was asked as to his having been in company with the defender, William Goodall, in a certain tavern?

Anderson, for the Defender, objected, that this was not relevant to the case, the defender's conduct not being in issue.

Robertson, for the Pursuer, answered, that the object of this evidence was to show that the defender “wrongfully deserted” his master's service.

The Court refused to allow the question.

The evidence related chiefly to the treatment of the apprentice. The witnesses for the defender, who had been previously in the service of the pursuer, spoke to his having been, in general, harshly treated and kept back in learning his trade,—to the pursuer's son having used abusive language towards him, and made him do the drudgery-work of the shop, and having once given him a violent push. The witnesses for the pursuer, who had been, and continued to be, in his service, saw no acts of maltreatment on the part of the pursuer or his son.