Washington DC - Genealogy Trails - A. Fletcher, Apprentice Indenture

Washington District of Columbia

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Apprentice Indenture Documents
from the District of Columbia Archives

Furnished by : John Sharp ©

Return to : Apprentice Indenture Documents List

The case of the Runaway Apprentice
Master Ship Builder William Easby vs. Archibald Fetcher
April 27, 1841

Introduction:
Most apprenticeships were straightforward business relationships with the apprentice contracted to serve and learn while the Journeyman or Master Mechanic contracted to provide the requisite instruction and tutelage in their trade or craft. Some apprentices however were involuntarily indentured by the District of Columbia Orphans Court or by a parent or guardian anxious to provide a future for their charge or simply to have done with the responsibility Apprentices in such cases could either suffer and endure their apprenticeship in silence, while still other unhappy apprentices were able to persuade a court or guardian to revoke or change the trade or terms. For others running away was always a temptation. Each year dozens of young and unhappy apprentices ran from their masters employ some for a brief period while other fled to other occupations many runaways in Baltimore and Washington DC chose to enter their names on rolls of merchant or naval vessels. Masters typically made a nominal search for the miscreant apprentice. The cost to search out a straying apprentice might be great and the mere thought of having a sulking worker about the shop made many masters simply hire another apprentice. In 1841 William Easby (1791 - 1854) a highly successful Master Shipwright took the extremely rare action to exercise his legal prerogatives against his runaway apprentice Archibald Fletcher. Fletcher was indentured in February 1838 with his father William Fletcher signing the indenture. Fletcher was nineteen years old at the time of the indenture. Per the contract he was to serve until age twenty one. Perhaps Fletcher resented his fathers actions or could not or would not work as shipwright with the Easby Yard . Fletcher chose to run and William Easby went to the District of Columbia Circuit Court to enforce his right to have Archibald Fletcher comply with the terms of their apprentice indenture. Although the Court's judgment was in Easby's favor it is unclear if Fletcher ever returned to serve out his time.

For biography of William Easby see:
Captain William Easby 1791 -1854 Shipbuilder and Early Washington Entrepreneur

Apprenticeship No. 1591 (Vol. V 145-146)

Archibald Fletcher }	 This Indenture made this Ninetieth 
	to         }     day of February 1838 - between William Fletcher  		
	           }	 of this City of Washington with William Easby  
William Easby      }	 of the same place on the other part.  Witnesseth that the said 
	           }     William Fletcher hath placed and bound out and by these presents 
doth place and bind out his son Archibald Fletcher who on the 18th - day of January next 
will be twenty years of age an apprentice to the said William Easby to learn the art trade 
or mystery of a ship carpenter after the manner of an apprentice the said Archibald to 
serve the said William Easby from the  date of these presents until the 18th day of January 
one thousand eight hundred and forty when the said Archibald shall attain twenty one 
years, during all of which time and term the said Archibald, shall the said William 
faithfully serve in all such lawful business as the said Archibald be put unto by his said 
Master according to the power and ability of him the said Archibald  and honestly and 
obediently in all things shall behave himself towards his said Master and respectfully and 
orderly towards the rest of the family of his said Master And the said William Esaby on 
his part doth promise covenant and agree to teach and instruct the said apprentice or 
cause him to be taught and instructed in the art trade or calling of a ship carpenter by the 
best way or means he can and shall in lieu of meat drink clothing &c &c pay to the said 
William Fletcher the sum of ten dollars monthly- 

	In Testimony whereof the said William Fletcher and the said William Easby have 
hereunto set their hands and seals this day and year first herein before written - 

Signed Sealed and delivered 	  } 	William Fletcher (SEAL)
in the presence of  	          }	William Easby    (SEAL) 
William Knowles 	          }	Recorded Feby 19th 1837

WILLIAM EASBY vs. ARCHIBALD FLETCHER DECIDED APRIL 27 1841 Apprentice's Indenture.
Where an apprentice absents himself from his master without consent the number of days, with- lost by his absence, the court will compel the apprentice to serve his master the number of days lost by his absence, to commence from the expiration of his apprenticeship. This was a suit brought by the petitioner for compensation for the loss occasioned by the absence of the respondent from the petitioner's service without consent. The petition is as follows: "Archibald Fletcher was, on the 19th day of February, 1838, duly and lawfully bound as an apprentice to the petitioner, to learn the trade and mystery of a ship carpenter, and to serve as such until the 18th day of January, 1840. He came into the service of the petitioner as such apprentice and remained and continued under indenture until the 26th day of March, 1839, and continued absent until the 20th day of May, 1839, and again on the 27th day of August, 1839, when he ran away and absented himself from the service of the petitioner, and hath remained and continued so absent hitherto to the present time, and although often requested to return, hath hitherto refused to return to .his service or to make the petitioner any compensation for the loss he has thereby sustained. The petitioner averred that he well and truly kept and performed all the warranties of the indenture required of him; that the apprentice's service was of great value to him." The petitioner prayed that he may be awarded such compensation either by service or by payment of money as justice and equity may require. Joseph H. Bradley for the petitioner, Brent and Brent for the respondent. The case was submitted on the petition and the indenture accompanying it, after being argued by the respective counsel. The following is the opinion of the court:It appears that the respondent. Archibald Fletcher, was, on the 19th day of February, 1838, lawfully bound out by his father as an apprentice to the petitioner. William Easby; the said Archibald being then 19 years and 11 months of age; and that by the terms of said indenture, the time which he had to serve expired the 18th day of January, 1840; and that during the said time which he had to serve as aforesaid, he absconded from his said master, and absented himself from the service of his said master from the 26th day of March, to the 22d day of May, 1839. and from the 27th day of August, 1839, to the 18th day of January, 1840, making in all 150 working days. The court, therefore, on this 27th day of April, 1841, upon the petition of the said William Easby, and upon the appearance of the said Archibald Fletcher, and upon full hearing of the parties by their counsel, doth award and order that the said Archibald Fletcher make compensation to the said William Easby, for his loss of the services of the said Archibald Fletcher, by serving him, the said William Easby, as an apprentice for the term of one hundred and fifty working days, commencing on the 3d day of May next. And in case the said Archibald Fletcher should refuse to obey this order, the said William Easby will have leave to apply to this court for an attachment of contempt or other process to enforce the same, for which purpose this cause will be continued from term to term until the further order of the court.

WILLIAM EASBY
vs.

ARCHIBALD FLETCHER

DECIDED APRIL 27 1841
Apprentice's Indenture.

Where an apprentice absents himself from his master without consent the number of days, with- lost by his absence, the court will compel the apprentice to serve his master the number of days lost by his absence, to commence from the expiration of his apprenticeship.

This was a suit brought by the petitioner for compensation for the loss occasioned by the absence of the respondent from the petitioner's service without consent. The petition is as follows:

"Archibald Fletcher was, on the 19th day of February, 1838, duly and lawfully bound as an apprentice to the petitioner, to learn the trade and mystery of a ship carpenter, and to serve as such until the 18th day of January, 1840. He came into the service of the petitioner as such apprentice and remained and continued under indenture until the 26th day of March, 1839, and continued absent until the 20th day of May, 1839, and again on the 27th day of August, 1839, when he ran away and absented himself from the service of the petitioner, and hath remained and continued so absent hitherto to the present time, and although often requested to return, hath hitherto refused to return to .his service or to make the petitioner any compensation for the loss he has thereby sustained. The petitioner averred that he well and truly kept and performed all the warranties of the indenture required of him; that the apprentice's service was of great value to him."
The petitioner prayed that he may be awarded such compensation either by service or by payment of money as justice and equity may require.

Joseph H. Bradley for the petitioner,
Brent and Brent for the respondent.

The case was submitted on the petition and the indenture accompanying it, after being argued by the respective counsel. The following is the opinion of the court:It appears that the respondent. Archibald Fletcher, was, on the 19th day of February, 1838, lawfully bound out by his father as an apprentice to the petitioner. William Easby; the said Archibald being then 19 years and 11 months of age; and that by the terms of said indenture, the time which he had to serve expired the 18th day of January, 1840; and that during the said time which he had to serve as aforesaid, he absconded from his said master, and absented himself from the service of his said master from the 26th day of March, to the 22d day of May, 1839. and from the 27th day of August, 1839, to the 18th day of January, 1840, making in all 150 working days.

The court, therefore, on this 27th day of April, 1841, upon the petition of the said William Easby, and upon the appearance of the said Archibald Fletcher, and upon full hearing of the parties by their counsel, doth award and order that the said Archibald Fletcher make compensation to the said William Easby, for his loss of the services of the said Archibald Fletcher, by serving him, the said William Easby, as an apprentice for the term of one hundred and fifty working days, commencing on the 3d day of May next. And in case the said Archibald Fletcher should refuse to obey this order, the said William Easby will have leave to apply to this court for an attachment of contempt or other process to enforce the same, for which purpose this cause will be continued from term to term until the further order of the court.

Source:
Cases Civil and Criminal Argued and Adjudged in the Circuit Court District of Columbia for the County of Washington (From March Term 1840, to March Term 1850)
A Continuation of Cranch's Circuit Court Reports of The District of Columbia edited John A. Hayward and George C. Hazleton,
Dutton and Company 1907. Pages 35-36.

Return to :
Genealogy Trails - Washington D. C.