VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
561 
reminded he could not go, as there was a penalty; but that 
did not bind him till after the first six years of the partner- 
ship. He was liable to a penalty of £100 under the apprentice 
indenture for practising within eight miles of Sudbury ; but 
the penalty under the articles of partnership would not 
begin till nearly a year after the transactions under inquiry. 
In his conversations with the defendant, Mr. Squire meant 
the penalty under the indenture of apprenticeship, though he 
had been careful to say in his evidence “ articles of agree- 
ment,” and to state “ seven miles,” the distance mentioned 
in the articles, while the indenture mentioned eight miles. 
In August, 1854, the defendant proposed that the partner- 
ship should be dissolved, and would swear that, in the 
conversation with Mr. Squire about leaving, he never said 
anything about the penalty under the articles of partnership, 
but referred to the penalty under the apprenticeship indenture. 
Mr. Rolfe, the arbitrator, would state that nothing of the 
kind occurred. The question for the jury was whether the 
plaintiff and those who represented him meant the penalty 
under the articles of partnership, or whether they meant that 
under the indenture ; the defendant would swear that he did 
not consider himself liable under the articles, and this w 7 as 
shown by his putting out circulars, stating that the partner- 
ship was then dissolved, and asking for patronage, and 
practising under the eyes of his master and of the county. 
Mr. Browne had pulled him up for £100, and now asked for 
£500 penalty, which, if plaintiff succeeded, the defendant 
would have to pay ; but the more serious question was 
behind, whether, after he had paid it, he w r ould be at liberty 
to practise in Sudbury. After all, the real question for the 
jury was whether there w 7 as an agreement extraneous to the 
written document. 
At this point, the case was adjourned till Monday. 
Monday. — This case, which was commenced on Saturday, 
w 7 as called on this morning, but could not be proceeded with 
in consequence of the absence of the attorney and witnesses 
for the defence. 
His Lordship remarked with much severity on the non- 
attendance of the parties concerned, and expressing his 
opinion that there was evidence enough for the case to go 
before the Jury, directed them, the evidence being uncon- 
tradicted, to return a verdict for the plaintiff. 
Verdict for the plaintiff, damages £500. 
Suffolk Chronicle . 
XXVII. 
73 
