ARGLIS v HEASEMAN order for discharge a apprentice must set out the appearance  of the master Mr marsh move to quash a order of session make for discharge a  apprentice first exception this be a original application to the session  whereas they have no original jurisdiction their jurisdiction in these case  arise from statute Elizabeth c S and in Carth the king and GateIy a order  quash for go original to the session which case be also in Mod second  exception if the session have a original jurisdiction yet it be limit upon the  appearance of the master or some default make by he which ought to be show in  the order and nothing of that Cunnigham er p appear on this order Cunningham  three exception the jurisdiction in this case be not right exercise for the  reason they give and they be bind to give a reason be for unkind usage from  the master now the Act give they jurisdiction if the master misuse his  apprentice or evil entreat he and the allege unkind usage come not up to that  and the order say further that the master refuse to continue he in his service  or to entertain he accord to the indenture which will not make it better for  in the case of king and Davis Trin Geo a order state that the master declare  he will not take his apprentice again and hold to be no sufficient reason and  the order be quash Mr Pilsworth contra as to the first objection there have be  several resolution contrary to that of the king and gately and particular in  the case of the king and Johnson salk it be solemnly settle that the session  have original jurisdiction notwithstanding the word of the Act as to the  second objection he cite the case of Dillan I salk and ditton case salk but on  look into they they appear to be direct against he and in the case of Ditton  it be say that the Act must have a reasonable construction so as not to permit  the master to take advantage of his own obstinacy as to the three objection he  say that the Act leaves it to the justice discretion to discharge if they see  cause Lord Hardwicke as to the first objection the late case have be that the  session have original jurisdiction and though it be to be wish that private  justice have a prior jurisdiction as be less expensive yet I think it be a  right determination upon that Act that the session have a original  jurisdiction for the application which the Act direct to be make to a private  justice seem to mean only to arbitrate and accommodate the dispute the statute  say if he can compound the matter he be to take bind for the party appearance  at the session so that they be not to take it up by appeal as to the second  objection I think it be not to be get over in case of conviction appearance  have always be hold necessary but in case of order in general the court in  many case will presume in all respects rite be acta and that distinction  between order and conviction be confirm in the case of king and Lloyd in last  term but then that presumption be only in case of order upon statute which do  not in express term require a appearance but now we be upon a Act which give  the justice a authority to proceed upon the appearance of the party so that it  be make a essential requisite by the Act to find their jurisdiction as to the  three objection in general it be not necessary to set out the reason of their  judgement but here the Act require it and it be right say that use unkind be  not such misusage as be intend by the Act and if the follow reason his refuse  to continue he in his service be to be understand as a absolute refusal to let  he continue with he and not only as a refusal to entertain he accord to his  article Cunningham that neither will be a ground for this order because the  justice have a power to compel the master to take he again as be do in the  case of the king and Davis however this be more doubtful but on the second  objection the order must be quash