Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/553

or indirectly, in any shop, room, or place, within the space of half a mile of the now dwelling-house of the said Margery Nainby, situate in Drury-lane, or of any other house that she the said Margery Nainby, her executors or administrators, shall think proper to remove to, in order to carry on the said trade of a linen draper; nor shall she the said Elizabeth, within the same space of half a mile, directly or indirectly be concerned in, or assist or instruct any other person or persons in the managing and carrying on the said trade, under colour or pretence of being a servant to such person or persons, or under any other colour or pretence whatsoever. Which said express promise and agreement, joined with the good character and opinion that she the said Margery hath in the integrity and honesty of her the said Elizabeth, is the sole consideration and inducement that has obliged the said Margery to take the said Elizabeth into her service for the space of three years. Now the condition of the above obligation is such, that if the said Elizabeth Vickers shall act contrary to and in breach of the above-recited promise and agreement, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, or of any part thereof; that then and in such case, the said [235] Elizabeth Vickers, her executors and administrators, shall thereupon pay, or cause to be paid, unto the said Margery Nainby, her executors, administrators, and assigns, the full and just sum of £100 of good and lawful money of Great Britain, without fraud or further delay, the said sum of £100 being the consideration money which is computed the said Margery Nainby might reasonably expect with an apprentice to the said trade; that then this obligation to be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue in law.

And then the plaintiffs pleaded, that the said Elizabeth continued in the service of the said Margery Nainby to the 28th of April 1724, and then departed and left the said service; and that the said Margery continued to reside and exercise her trade in her said dwelling-house in Drury-lane, from the time of making the said bond, to the day of suing out the original writ; and that she the said Elizabeth, within the space of half a mile from the said dwelling-house of the said Margery, at any time after the departure of the said Elizabeth from the service of the said Margery, directly or indirectly, was not concerned in or assisted, or instructed any person or persons whatsoever in managing or exercising the trade aforesaid, under colour or pretence of being a servant to such person or persons, or under any other colour or pretence whatsoever. And further, that she the said Elizabeth, at any time after her departure from the service of the said Margery, did not use or exercise the said art or trade, either by herself, or any other person or persons in trust for her, or for her use, either directly or indirectly, in any shop, room, or place, within the space of half a mile from the dwelling house of the said Margery.

To this plea the defendant Nainby replied, that the said Elizabeth, from the time of making the said bond, continued and remained in the service aforesaid, and from thence departed and left her said service, as the said plaintiffs above alledged; and that the defendant Margery Nainby continued to inhabit, reside, and exercise her trade in manner as the said plaintiffs by their plea alledged. But the defendant further said, that the said Elizabeth, within the space of half a mile from the dwelling-house of the said Margery, in the said plea above-mentioned, and within nine months after the departure of the said Elizabeth from the service aforesaid, did assist and instruct a certain person, viz. the said David Chesman, in managing and exercising the trade aforesaid, in the condition above-mentioned, against the tenor of the said condition, to wit, in Drury-lane in the parish of St. Giles in the Fields aforesaid. And on this issue was joined.

At the sittings after Easter term 1725, the cause was tried before the Lord Chief Justice King, when, upon full evidence given, and after a full defence made, a verdict was found for the plaintiff in that action.

In Trinity term following, the defendants moved the Court of Common Pleas in arrest of judgment, under pretence, that the bond was void in law but upon hearing counsel on both sides, the Court unanimously gave judgment for the said Margery [236] Nainby; and judgment was accordingly signed and entered up of record.

The defendants therefore brought a writ of error in the King's Bench; and upon argument in Hilary term 1726, the judgment was affirmed, by the unanimous opinion of all the Judges of that court.