case Hobbs who tam c against young Hilary term will and mary roll see this  case ante page if a merchant hire clothworker and dyer for the sole purpose of  manufacture and die woollen clothes to export abroad in the way of trade he be  liable to a action on Elizabeth c S for use the trade of a clothier not have  be apprentice to that trade although he keep master to superintend the  manufacture and all the journeyman employ in it have serve regular  apprenticeship to their respective trade for it be the merchant who be the  trader SC ante SC salk SC Mod SC comb SC Carth SC holt the court now seriatim  deliver their opinion eyres justice for the plaintiff that this be a set up  and exercise of a trade within the statute which he take to be a politic law  for the accustom man to labour and industry in their youth at commonlaw every  man may have exercise what trade be please whether a private custom for  exercise a trade be take away by this statute have be a question but I confess  the better opinion seem to be that it be not cro car sand Bulst here the Act  be negative and in the general and reach to all the trade of a clothworker be  exercise in the defendant house and must be exercise by some body and the  exercise of it by journeyman and master workman or a overseer for hire be not  a exercise of it by they but by he that employ they he provide they material  and tool and pay they wage by law he be esteem the trader who be to run the  loss and hazard the whole managery be to be for his profit and the workman be  to have no advantage but their wage the widow of a tradesman can use her  husband trade unless she be empower by some custom or have real serve as a  apprentice Noy hut palm see roll v Sholey all the argument and quare in that  case suppose that use a apprentice in a trade be a exercise of the trade I do  agree that the private exercise of a trade for the use of a man family be not  prohibit it be only a private service but if not confine to the use of his  family it be within the statute   hob   as to his export the cloth he be not  indict for use the trade of a merchant the f see SC post shower KB er p  exercise of make and work shower KB cloth be the offence and the export of it  afterward can purge that offence and so he conclude for the plaintiff Gregory  justice ad idem the buy of cloth and the set of workman at work in his house  be the exercise of the trade it be all for his advantage it be the master  drive of a trade by the hand of a servant the overseer and master workman be  as much his servant as any other a man may use a trade by another hand as in  James c be imply when it be say that if any man by himself or by any other c  and that show it be their sense it may be manage by other in case of a  goldsmith though he never work at it yet his sell make he a user of that trade  Bulst the design of this statute be to encourage they who have be apprentice  these good be buy by he to merchandise withal not for the use of his family it  be not like the undertake to build a house and employ tradesman for that  purpose that be not within the statute dolbin justice for the defendant he be  not within the word of the statute the trade of a clothworker be a manual  occupation for he run no hazard he incur no loss he neither buy nor sell he be  only pay for dress the cloth and so he be here the master workman be the man  that exercise the trade if he have employ these workman for the work and dress  of cloth for other man it may have be somewhat but these journeyman here have  their hire for work the defendant own cloth in the other case it be but a  handicraft for hire and here they have it he employ clothworker breed  apprentice and give they good wage and they have no more than if they have  work in their own house it be the interest of the clothworker only to work for  hire and he be not concern for any thing else the merchant be concern for the  benefit and honour of the commodity it be no damage to private labour person  and be for the company interest it no way influence or affect I at all holt  chief justice for the plaintiff he do exercise the trade of a clothworker he  employ man only as journeyman and not as principal workman in the trade the  master workman be employ only as a servant then the question be whether it be  lawful for a merchant to manufacture his own commodity now he that use one  trade can use the trade of another for or about the commodity use in his own  trade a coacbmaker can make the wheel for his own coach a wheelright can use  the trade of a smith here the defendant have the same profit as if he work  himself he receive shower KB a benefit and allowance from the party to who he  sell the commodity he do receive the gain belong to another trade Noy Hunton v  more there it be adjudge for the defendant because the die be a part of the  feltmaker trade and so use ancient a combmaker be sue for exercise the trade  of a Horner the proof be that he press horn to make they fit for comb and yet  hold that he do exercise the trade of a Horner if the defendant be a merchant  have wrought his own cloth he will have be within it and then his employ  journeyman be the same thing for the journeyman be not the tradesman and  therefore he that employ he must be so he receive the profit though he be not  pay by another in particular for this yet he receive the profit and run all  the hazard the workman have but their hire agree upon the word of the statute  be not confine to personal handicraft the word be set up and that may be by  other without work in it a man self the contrary opinion will discourage many  who have great family for they can not have that profit as if they do the work  themselves for the common rate c suppose a merchant that will transport shoe  and he shall buy leather and employ journeyman to make they this man certain  use the trade of a shoemaker though the shoe be never sell here but transport  the intendment of law be that he have no skill and consequent the end of the  statute be avoid judgement for the plaintiff shower KB er p