5G0 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
entirely conducted by defendant. She did not know where 
the apprenticeship indenture was. 
Re-examined; — In July, 1853, a person named Sewell was 
employed to assist, and afterwards another person. 
II. Trigg , gardener, and A. Webl 3 innkeeper of Cornard; 
Joseph Bridge , of B ulmer; and George Harding , all deposed to 
the defendant’s having told them about last Michaelmas that 
he was under penalties against practising there. 
Mr. Serjeant Bgles , for the defendant, after some technical 
objections to the declaration, which were overruled, said that 
nothing was further from the intention of his client than to 
expose himself to an action for £500, by practising in the 
very sight of the plaintiff, without the means of meeting the 
demand. In his experience he never met with a case in 
which, upon a parole agreement, any question had arisen 
with respect to a penalty. If his learned friend should suc- 
ceed on this parole evidence, it was clear that the defendant 
would have to pay the £500; but behind that was a more 
serious question, having paid the £500, he would still be 
unable to practise at Sudbury. He doubted whether his 
lordship had ever met with an instance in which a man, by 
word of mouth had agreed to bind himself to pay £500 in a 
case like this. His client was a very young man ; he had 
lost his father and mother, but he had an aunt at Bungay, 
who, out of her humble means, had apprenticed him to the 
plaintiff, in 1844. On that indenture she paid £150, besides 
which the plaintiff took from her a bond that the young man 
should not practise, after his indentures expired, within eight 
miles of Sudbury, and that she was to pay £100 penalty if 
he did. This penalty had been exacted, and was at this 
moment a debt from defendant to his aunt. The young man 
passed through his apprenticeship in a most creditable man- 
ner, and the best proof was that his master agreed to take 
him into partnership. The first thing his client discovered 
was that Mr. Brown was in a state of insolvency, in con- 
sequence of which he assigned his estate for the benefit 
of his creditors. It was a cruel thing when a young man 
entering life found himself tied and bound to an insolvent 
partner. Further, Mr. Brown was certainly not a teeto- 
taller, and the defendant, if he had one third of the business, 
had a great deal more than two thirds of the work. 
There were disputes, and violent language was used between 
them ; in one instance Mr. Brown lifted his stick to strike 
the defendant ; under these circumstances it was quite im- 
possible that the partnership could continue. Mr. Squire 
had told them that Shave was determined to go, but was 
