Commonwealth v. Barker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Barker

11 Serg. & Rawle 360, 1824 Pa. LEXIS 81

DecidedSeptember 11, 1824

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Serg. & Rawle 360 (Commonwealth v. Barker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Barker, 11 Serg. & Rawle 360, 1824 Pa. LEXIS 81 (Pa. 1824).

Pincite

Opinion

By tre Court.

There is one point of great importance, on which the court intimates no opinion, viz: whether the child of a person, born since the act of 1788, is bound to serve until the age of twenty-eight. But there is another point decisive of this case. The occupation of the master is not' mentioned in the register. Bdt inasmuch as it would be impossible to mention the occupation of a man'who has no occupation, We have admitted parol evidence for the .purpose of proving that Mr. Barker had no occupation at the time of entering this boy. On this subject it is incumbent on the master to remove all doubt, and we cannot say that the evidence has been sufficient for that purpose. We think it very doubtful from the evidence, whether Mr. Barker was not a partner of a manufacturing company at the date of this resister. For that reason we are of opinion, that the register is not according to law, and Frank is entitled to his discharge.

Prisoner discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By tre Court.

There is one point of great importance, on which the court intimates no opinion, viz: whether the child of a person, born since the act of 1788, is bound to serve until the age of twenty-eight. But there is another point decisive of this case. The occupation of the master is not' mentioned in the register. Bdt inasmuch as it would be impossible to mention the occupation of a man'who has no occupation, We have admitted parol evidence for the .purpose of proving that Mr. Barker had no occupation at the time of entering this boy. On this subject it is incumbent on the master to remove all doubt, and we cannot say that the evidence has been sufficient for that purpose. We think it very doubtful from the evidence, whether Mr. Barker was not a partner of a manufacturing company at the date of this resister. For that reason we are of opinion, that the register is not according to law, and Frank is entitled to his discharge.

Prisoner discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Serg. & Rawle 360, 1824 Pa. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-barker-pa-1824.