Viewing page 132 of 346

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

the age of 14 years provided it is not opposed by his natural guardian 3d by vagrancy and unless it is shown that the business was in conformity with the law, it is illegal, and should be unnullified. 

Upon the whole - from the evidence before me - I believe the premises to be correct in stating that Joshua did not give his consent - to the apprenticeship, but on the contrary disapproved of the whole transaction
And made a positive contract for his son in another quarters and that the contract was predicated upon the fact that Brooks was to have the services of the said Jeff

Hence as the matter now stands, in the absence of further proof, I am clearly of the opinion that the apprenticeship works as hardship and should be disregarded and that the contract made with Brooks should [[strikethough]] pro [[/strikethrough]] prevail in the matter, at least until further facts are elicited, showing the contrary 

In reference to the [[?]] at civil law I would state that the county court has final and exclusive jurisdiction in matters of apprenticeship, and that there is no appeal except by amt of "Habeus Corpus,"  to the District Court - which would be [[/strikethrough[[ [[?]] [[/strikethrough]] attended with some delay and expense -

I am very Respectfully your obt. Servt
Oscar F. Hanswaker
Atty at Law. -