BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
James Watson v George Mossman. [1698] 4 Brn 420 (11 November 1698)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1698/Brn040420-0836.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
James Watson v. George Mossman
Date: 11 November 1698
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The mutual charges between George Mossman and James Watson, printers in Edinburgh, founded on indentures passed between the said George, and Patrick Watson, brother to the said James, and probation led thereon, were this day advised. George had charged his apprentice with some malversations, as purloining some books and money, and lending some of the types and instruments of printing to his brother James, which belonged to his master; and thereon hot words following, he thrust away his apprentice, and he, by way of instrument, required him to take him back again, who refused; and thereon being charged, George suspends on this reason, That he was not bound to receive back an unfaithful servant; and that, by his means, he wanted sundry types, and the hand of the Rudiments, &c.: Watson denied that these were committed to his charge.
The Lords, before answer, allowed a conjunct probation anent the way and manner how the tools, printing stamps, irons, and instruments were kept; and if they were committed to this apprentice's sole care and trust; or if there was a promiscuous management and oversight of the haill apprentices and journeymen, and how these instruments came to be abstracted, or if they were lent, and with whom they were found, or how they were returned; and to prove his damages through his master's refusing to take him back again, &c. And the mutual probation being this day advised, the Lords thought apprentices are not to desert their service for every castigation or reproof their master gives them; and though the master be somewhat unreasonable and harsh, yet that is no sufficient cause to dissolve the indentures. Yet, on the other hand, there is a great difference between an apprentice and an ordinary servant: the one may be turned away at pleasure, at least at term-day, without obliging the master to give any reason for his so doing, but he may not act so arbitrarily with apprentices, who being gentlemen's sons come for education; so it must not be in that case beneplacitum arbitrarium but rationale; and every fault in an apprentice must not be made a reason to thrust them away. And in this case they found no such malversation proven on the apprentice's part as was sufficient to warrant George, the master, to put him away; so that some inclined to cause him enter home again to his service; but neither of them being very desirous of one another, the Lords declared them free, and to discharge each other of the indentures; but finding the master in the wrong, they decerned him to repay the 100 merks of apprentice-fee, and modified the damages to another 100 merks, which they ordained the said George Mossman likewise to pay; and found the letters at the apprentice's instance orderly proceeded for the same.
