{
  "id": 438665,
  "name": "John Holliday, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Gamble, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holliday v. Gamble",
  "decision_date": "1856-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "36",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 Ill. 35"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "b1c6cdc65906c8d5ecc50c7270e6d9324c933eb2212efb14cf727b72cc594c48",
    "simhash": "1:ef1a501c3a5aeb95",
    "word_count": 624
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:47:31.803188+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Holliday, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Gamble, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Scates, C. J.\nThe case involves a construction of the 17th section of the Apprentice Act, Rev. Stat. 1845, p. 54. Its language is, \u201cEvery person who shall counsel, persuade, entice, aid or assist any clerk, apprentice or servant, to run away, or absent himself or herself, from the service of his or her master or mistress, or to rebel against or assault his or her master or mistress, shall forfeit and pay,\u201d etc.\nThe declaration alleges that defendant did \u201c counsel, entice and persuade\u201d the apprentice of plaintiff to depart from and out of the service of plaintiff; and that by means of such counsel, etc., the apprentice unlawfully, etc., \u201c became rebellious, dissatisfied, disaffected, discontented and troublesome,\u201d and hath so remained hitherto.\nOn demurrer, objection was taken and sustained to the declaration, that it is not shown that the apprentice departed from or left plaintiff\u2019s service. According to this construction, defendant may innocently, and with impunity, counsel, persuade and entice the apprentice to leave his master\u2019s service, provided he be unsuccessful.\nAgain, the position is assumed here in argument, that if counsel, persuasion and enticement be used to induce the apprentice to leave his master, and in consequence of which the apprentice rebels, instead of leaving, that no liability arises under the statute.\nNeither of these positions will give a sound, fair and reasonable construction to the act. Its meaning and intention is much broader and more efficient.\nTo counsel, persuade, entice, aid or assist an apprentice either to run away or absent himself, or to rebel, or to assault his master, will violate the master\u2019s rights under the act, whether the counsel, persuasion, or enticement be followed or not by the servant. And the spirit of the act makes it equally violative of the master\u2019s rights, if the counsel to run away, etc.,' results in the servant\u2019s rebellion against or assault upon his master. The manifest intention is to forbid and punish such evil, mischievous counsel; to forbid and punish any attempt in the modes, or by the means enumerated, to intermeddle with the relationship of the parties.\nThis intent is made'more apparent by the great strictness with which the master\u2019s rights are guarded, and remedies afforded in the other provisions of the act, both against the apprentice himself* and such as may knowingly harbor him.\nPower is given to, and will he maintained in the master, to enable him to discharge his duties fully in locopavenUs, in the* government, training and management of his apprentice. I see in the act that power (under control for abuse, however,) is wisely placed in the master\u2019s hands, and so placed for the good of the apprentice. I shall ever maintain it, in its just and proper exercise, against all mischievous intermeddling of others, by such unwholesome and unjustifiable advice and persuasion as here shown.\nNo one shall be permitted to do all he can to overturn the just authority and rights of subordination; and when questioned for it, defend himself upon the ground that his attempt proved unsuccessful; or did not succeed in the mode or to the extent he designed to accomplish the mischief intended.\nThe demurrer should have been overruled.\nJudgment reversed and cause remanded.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Scates, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Underwood and Anderson, for Plaintiff in Error.",
      "P. E. Hosmer, for Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Holliday, Plaintiff in Error, v. William Gamble, Defendant in Error.\nERROR TO PERRY.\nAn action will lie against a party who shall \u201c counsel, entice, and persuade\" an apprentice to depart from the service of his master; whether the apprentice shall act upon the counsel given or not.\nTms cause was heard at October term, 1855, of the Perry Circuit Court. The opinion of the court furnishes a statement of the case.\nUnderwood and Anderson, for Plaintiff in Error.\nP. E. Hosmer, for Defendant in Error."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 31,
  "last_page_order": 32
}