atkins case argles v HEASEMAN November that follow web v England Beav the  plaintiff son be put apprentice to the defendant for year but quit he on be  misuse and on defendant proceed at law on a bind give by the plaintiff he  bring a bill for a injunction and for the delivery of the bind a court of  equity have no jurisdiction in matter of this nature but belong to justice of  peace and therefore the plaintiff order to pay cost at law and in this court  misuser of a apprentice be not a foundation for come into equity for if a  action be bring by a master against the father of a apprentice for a breach of  covenant in quit his service if misuser appear this be no breach by indenture  of apprenticeship of the that of August the plaintiff son put himself  apprentice the defendant a mercer for seven year and he in consideration  atkins er p of twenty pound covenantee to instruct the plaintiff son in his  trade and the plaintiff agree to pay the defendant pound more if his son live  to the that of June and give the defendant a bind for it the bind it seem be  give for payment of this further pound and for performance of the covenant  contain in the indenture of apprenticeship it appear from the bill and answer  that the plaintiff duly pay the further pound and she defendant bring his  action upon the bind for the breach of covenant it likewise appear that the  justice have discharge the apprentice and have order one pound to be refund  since the come in of the answer it be admit that the defendant have repay the  say pound and that the order of session have be quash by the court of king b  but that another order have be make at the session to discharge the apprentice  vide hale v web bro Charles Rep on such contingency after the that of June the  plaintiff son quit the defendant upon be misuse and evil treat in be compel by  the defendant to take care of his horse and to do other servile office and  upon the defendant proceed at law against the plaintiff upon the bind he bring  a bill for a injunction and for the delivery of the bind Lord chancellor a  very unnecessary suit in this court and if I shall take upon I to determine it  here it will be a vast expense to the master and apprentice and will be assume  a jurisdiction which do not at all belong to I but by the statute of Elizabeth  Elizabeth c sec be leave entire to justice of the peace as a matter most  proper for their determination the only pretence for brining it into equity be  the misuser and why can this be as well determine at law for if a action be  bring by a master against the father of a apprentice for a breach of covenant  in the son quit his service and it shall appear there have be a misuser of the  apprentice I shall certain direct a jury that this be no breach for a  apprentice may leave his master upon misuser the only question be whether the  misuser be a discharge of the apprentice which be a mere matter of law nor be  there the least pretence for come into this court but with the consent of the  defendant his lordship decree that the injunction already grant be make  perpetual and atkins that the bind be deliver up to the plaintiff to be cancel  and at the same time he order the plaintiff to pay the defendant his cost at  law on the action upon the bind and also his cost in this court Reg lib a fol