es until the age of eighteen years, or for a
shorter time. But the minor must have the consent of the father; or if
the father is dead, or disqualified by law, or neglects to provide for
his family, consent must be had of the mother; or, if the mother is dead
or disqualified, then of the guardian.

Sec.7. Pauper children may be bound out by the officers having charge of
the poor. And the laws of many of the states, perhaps of most or all of
them, very properly require, that a person, to whom a poor child is
bound, shall agree to cause such child to be taught to read and write,
and, if a male, to be also instructed in the general rules of
arithmetic.

Sec.8. Masters have a right to correct their apprentices with moderation
for negligence and misbehavior; and they may recover damage at law of
their apprentices for willful absence. On the other hand, a master may
be prosecuted for ill usage to his apprentice, and for a breach of his
covenant. A master is liable to pay for necessaries for his apprentice,
and for medical attendance, but he is not so liable in the case of a
hired servant.

Sec.9. When an apprentice becomes immoral and disobedient, an investigation
of the matter may be had by the proper authorities; and for good cause
the indenture may be annulled, and the parties discharged from their
obligations. Upon the death of a master, an apprenticeship is dissolved.

Sec.10. There is, it is believed, no statute law in any state, particularly
defining the rights and obligations of _hired servants_ and the persons
employing them. Both are obliged to fulfill their agreement. If a hired
servant leaves the service of his employer, without good cause, before
he has worked out the time for which he was hired, he cannot recover his
wages. And for immoral conduct, willful disobedience, or habitual
neglect, he may be dismissed. On the other hand, ill usage, or any
failure on the part of the employer to fulfill his engagement, releases
the laborer from his service.

Sec.11. How far a master is answerable for the acts of his hired servant,
is not clear. As a general rule, the master is bound for contracts
made, and liable for injuries done, by a servant actually engaged in the
business of his master, whether the injury proceeds from negligence or
from want of skill. But for an injury done by a willful act of the
servant, it is considered that the master is not liable. If the servant
employs another to do his business, the mas