Instances occur in which an apprentice was discharged because “the wife, after the death of her Husband, taught him not.”[399] The apprentice naturally brought forward this claim if by so doing there was a chance of shortening the term of his service, but he was not always successful. The Justices dismissed a case brought by Edward Steel, ordering him to serve Elizabeth Apprice, widow, the remainder of his term. He was apprenticed in 1684 to John Apprice Painter-Stainer for nine years; he had served seven years when his master died, and he now declares that Elizabeth, the widow, refuses to instruct him. She insists that since her husband’s death she has provided able workmen to instruct this apprentice, and that he was now capable of doing her good service.[400] When the “widowe Holton prayed that she [being executor to her husband] maye have the benefitt of the service of Roger Jakes, her husband’s apprentice by Indenture, for the residue of the years to come, which he denyeth to performe, it was ordered that th’apprentice shall dwell and serve his dame duringe the residue of his terme, she providing for him as well work as other things fitt for him.”[401] The Gilders having accused Richard Northy of having more than the just number of apprentices, he stated in his defence that the apprentice “was not any that was taken or bound by him, but was left unto him by express words in the will of his deceased mother-in-law whᶜʰ will, wᵗʰ the probate thereof, he now produced in court.”[402] Footnote 399: Stow, _London_, Book V., p. 335. Footnote 400: _Middlesex Sessions Book_, p. 47, 1691. Footnote 401: Guilding, _Reading Records_, Vol. II., p. 362. Footnote 402: Smythe, _Company of Girdlers_, p. 133, 1635. The occurrence of widows’ names among the cases which came before the Courts for infringements of the Company’s rules is further evidence that they were actively engaged in business. “Two bundles of unmade girdles were taken from widows Maybury and Bliss, young widows they were ordered to pay 5s. each by way of fine for making and selling unlawful wares.”[403] Richard Hewatt, of Northover in Glastonbury, fuller, when summoned to appear before the Somerset Quarter Sessions as a witness, refers to his dame Ursula Lance who had “lost 2 larrows worth five shillings and that Robert Marsh, one of the constables of Somerton Hundred, found in the house of William Wilmat the Larrows cloven in pieces and put in the oven, and the Rack-hookes that were in the larrows were found in the fire in the said house.”[404] Footnote 403: _Ibid._ p. 87, 1627. Footnote 404: _Somerset Q.S. Rec._, Vol. III., pp. 365-6, 1659.