THOMAS BOOKLESS v JOSEPH NORMAND (Court of Session)

In 1827, Bookless was bound apprentice to the respondent, Normand, for seven years. A regular indenture was entered into, in which Joseph Bookless, the father, and Charles Stobie, were cautioners. The indenture required performance of the usual obligations, ‘under the penalty of L.100 Scots, to be paid by the party failing to the party observing, or willing to observe the same;’ and contained a clause of registration.

Bookless being imprisoned upon this warrant, presented a bill of suspension and liberation, in which he pleaded —

III. Even if it had been competent to require the suspender to find caution a second time, the caution required in this case is exorbitant and oppressive, being nearly four times the amount of what had been agreed to by the parties in the indenture; and would indeed amount to a sentence of perpetual imprisonment against the suspender, who has already found caution to the utmost extent he is able to offer.

II. The caution required is not, in the circumstances of the case, exorbitant. The suspender is now in the last year of his apprenticeship, when his services are much more valuable to his master than at any former period, and when alone the master can expect to get any return for the expense he has been at with his apprentice during the first years of the indenture. The caution would not amount to the actual damage which the charger will sustain, if the suspender does not return and complete his engagement.

Lord President .—This is different from other similar cases we have had before us. Here is a regular indenture, with cautioners, and a clause of registration. The competent and regular way of proceeding was to record the indenture and give a charge upon it.