bird v randall No action lie for seduce a servant after recovery of a penalty  under article from the servant for his departure see Fbight v winch barn Ald  Brunsden v humh phrey QBD SC burr Burford enter into article with bird to  serve he in the silk manufacture for five year and to work at the usual hour  bird article to employ and pay he wage and they mutual bind themselves in the  penalty of to perform these article Randall seduce Burford from bird service  upon which be bring his action against Burford for the penalty which he  recover and receive the that of march and the present action be upon the case  as of Hilary term last against Randall for seduce the plaintiff servant h  verdict for the plaintiff damage subject to the opinion of the court  Blackstone Ashhurst for the defendant argue that the action will not lie there  be no injury to the plaintiff that Burford have a right to leave the plaintiff  service and if so it be no wrong in the defendant to seduce he by insert a  penalty in the article each party have estimate the injury which may accrue by  the breach of the agreement Burford may have tender the penalty and leave the  service have he leave the service first and the plaintiff have receive the  afterward that will have be a waiver of the injury a recovery by judgement as  in the present case amount to the same thing be equivalent to tender and  acceptance the plaintiff be therefore satisfy for whatever damage and injury  be sustain by the loss of Burford what the case will have be if he have bring  his action against Burford on the covenant and not for the penalty be now  immaterial but have make his election be be now bind by it and can bring no  action to recover any far satisfaction stow for the plaintiff this defence be  res inter elsewhere acta ought to have be plead the article still subsist it  be not say that on payment of the the article shall be void Lord Mansfield CJ  the true question be whether the penalty be intend as a stipulate alternative  for the whole of the covenant in the nature of state damage I desire to hear  another argument Dennison I at commonlaw if a plaintiff recover for a penalty  he can it maintain a action of covenant afterward the question be if judgement  be recover for the penalty whether it be not a entire satisfaction for the  whole article or whether the plaintiff can have two satisfaction for the same  injury I suppose a action oil debt on bind and judgement for the plaintiff and  a rescue or escape happen and afterward the debt and cost be pay no action lie  for the rescue or escape for the plaintiff have receive a satisfaction foster  I suppose a recovery have on a action of covenant for plough up meadow ground  at so much per acre as be usual in lease can a action of waste be afterward  bring for the same injury Blackstone Wilmot I the plaintiff have his election  to bring covenant or debt for the penalty king he have choose to bring debt  and can now resort back to the covenant my doubt be this the action against  Burford take either way be a action upon contract but the present action be  upon a tort ex fault well ex quasi fault it be former hold that a indictment  will lie for the seduction but Blackstone er p the contrary be now settle yet  still the action lie for the wrong do for this wrong there be a action vest in  the plaintiff at the time of the seduction commit what have now take it out of  he DenaisonJ this action be for damage bring by the same plaintiff who have  already have a satisfaction for those damage against a three person m Wilmot I  though it be the same person yet he have receive satisfaction to visit to look  upon for breach of contract not as a atonement for the offence post S c h so a  action lie against a person for continue to employ the servant of another  after notice without entice he away black v Lanyon TR and the master may waive  the tort and bring a action of assumpsit for the work and labour do by his  apprentice against the person wrongful employ he light v Clouston I taunt  foster v Stewart m S see a note of Mr hargrave on this subject   light a n I  see Com dig action king l and Hitchin you Campbell post king S p winter v trim  post beg v Daniel salk Mod cite also in ld raym see r v Higgins east arguendo  m in a action on the case for a deceitful representation of the credit of a in  consequence of which the plaintiff furnish he good it be object to the  competency of a when offer as a witness for the plaintiff that if they recover  they will receive satisfaction for the debt due to they from a and as in  consequence of the verdict he will not be liable to a action for the price of  the good he will be swear in his own discharge but Lord Ellenborough CJ  observe how can this record be evidence for he in another action I be aware of  the case of bird v Randall but I do not think that a have any interest in the  event of this suit Richardson v smith I camp in a action against a b for  adultery commit with the plaintiff wife it be no bar that the plaintiff have  also sue c d and charge he in execution for adultery commit with her about the  same period Gregson v MITaggart d this latter case indeed be distinguishable  for there be two distinct injury