HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0168 and id is 1 raw text is: banker, as the place where be was to be called upon for pay-[511]-ment, and where it
would be paid. Yet this was both an undertaking that there should be cash there,
and also an order to the bankers to pay it. It is not necessary that a demand should
be personal; it is sufficient if it be made at the house of the maker of the note; and
it is the same tbing in effect, if it be made at the place where he appoints it to be
made. If Judge had been the holder of the note, it would have been enough for him
to have presented it for payment at the house of Saunderson and Co. And as they at
whose house it was to be paid were themselves the holders of it, it was a sufficient
demand for them to turn to their books, and see the maker's account with them, and
a sufficient refusal, to find that he had no effects in their hands. As to the notice to
the Defendant, the sending the letter by the post was sufficient evidence of that
notice.
Rule absolute.
KEANE against BOYCOTT. Monday, May 18th, 1795.
[Referred to, Hartley v. Cummings, 1847, 5 C. B. 258; Evans v. Walter, 1867,
L. R. 2 C. P. 621 ; Walter v. Everard, [1891] 2 Q. B. 373.]
In an action against A. for seducing the servant of B. from his service, it is sufficient
evidence that A. asked the servant to enlist in the army and afterwards gave him
money. An infant slave in the West Indies executed an indenture, by which he
covenanted to serve B. for a certain term of years as his servant, and B. covenanted
to do certain things on his part: B. then came to England with the slave. In
an action against A. who had seduced him from the service of B., A. was not
permitted to allege that the contract was void, as being made by an infant and
a slave, and therefore that the declaration, which stated him to have been retained
as a servant for a term of years, was not proved; for the court held that the
effect of such a contract might be the manumission of the slave, and consequently
that it was for his own benefit, and being for his own benefit, that it was, at most,
only voidable by the infant himself (a).
This was an action on the case, for enticing the Plaintiff's servant to leave his
service. The first count of the declaration stated that on the 21st of April, 1794,
a certain person called Toney was retained to serve the Plaintiff for five years
from that day, and then went on to state the service, and enticement, &c. The
second count was, that on the same day and year, &c. a certain person called Toney
was retained to serve the Plaintiff for a certain term of years which was not yet
expired, and that the Defendant well knew the premises, &c. The third was for
assaulting the servant and seizing and carrying him away from the service of the
Plaintiff &c. per quod, &c.
The facts were, that a negro boy called Toney a slave in the island of St. Vincent
about 16 or 17 years old, there executed [512] an indenture, by which he bound
himself to serve the plaintiff, who -was coming to Europe, as a servant for five
years, and the Plaintiff covenanted to find him food, lodging and clothing, and medical
assistance in case of sickness. The plaintiff soon after arrived in this country with
the boy as his servant, and went to Cheltenham, where the Defendant, who was a
captain in the army on a recruiting party, meeting the boy in the street with his
livery on, asked him if he would enlist, to which he assented; the Defendant then
asked him whether he was an indented servant, to which he answered that he was
bound to the Plaintiff for five years. After this the boy went to the Defendant's
lodgings, where the Defendant gave him two shillings, and told him to go t) Gloucester
to the regiment; to which place he accordingly went. Upon this, the Plaintiff
procured a warrant from a magistrate, under which the boy was taken and brought
back to his service; after which, the Defendant sent two serjeants to take the boy
again, and bring him back to the regiment, which they did ; but it did not appear that
the boy went with them unwillingly or by compulsion.
(a) [As to the contracts of infants being void or voidable, see Bayliss v. Dineley,
3 M. & S. 477. Gibbs v. Merrill, 3 Taunt. 313. Burgess v. Merrill, 4 Taunt. 469.
Thornton v. lllingworth, 2 B. & C. 826.]
676
KEANE V. BOYCOTT
2 R . BL 51L,](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0168&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)