The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-09-18 00:00:00

BLANDFORD.

RIFLE CAPTS.--A bout 40 of the 90 men turned
out in full dress on Thursday evening last, to be in- !
spected and drilled by the batallion adjutant. The
comparatively important object tailing the corps •
together, would, no doubt, have ioduced a greater
number to assemble, had not previous evenings in,
the week been devoted to drill. Largely matte up
as this corps is, of the artisan claas, it is essentially
necessary that ih: arrangements made f..r drill—
especially on important occasions—should be so made

_

('ours.—The Sturminster sub-division of
the loth Dorset ItHe Volunteers assembled in the
Market-place, in this town. on Sunday morning last,
and marched to church. where loraYers were read by
the Vicar, the Rev. T. H. 1.. Fox. They assembled
.!
again in the evening, and marched to the church, in
the pretty village of Hinton St. Mary, where the
Rev. C. Niched preached an appropriate sermon.
Soo:a:cis LS Ihts.itv LEavisti MEM Eu•
ri.oVltesT'Mori LaWITL EXcess. - Thomaw
sled v. rips Hobert.. 01 Holwell. —The above
case was beard and determined on at the Petty
Sessions, at Stunniuster Newton, and it was decided
upon a new principle of law lately ruled by the
'mart of Queen's Beech, and vitally affecting the
interests of agriculturists and their labourers. We
here suljoin a short outline of the case. —The coin.
plainant, Thomas Antell, of Holwell, proved that his
son, Robert Arita, on his behalf, hired Chants
Roberta as a servant in rhusbandry for one year, at
the wages of its. per week and the use of a cottage,
and that he left his employ without notice or any
reasonable excuse. The Bench in giving the judgment
.1 the Court of Petty Sessions, after a minute and
circumstantial summing up of the evidence, slid,
"As this case is one of considerable importance to
the parties who are before the Court, and also to the
agricultural munity at large, it becomes our duty
t carefully to consider whether this is a case which
comes within the statute under which the information
is Lid by the lament. and to decide whether,
according to a recent decision of the Justices of the
Court of Queen's Bench, there has not been in this
case a dissolution of the contract subsisting between
the complainant and the defendant. It is true that
there was a contract of service for one 3 ear, and at
the weekly wages of 95., with the use and occupation
of a cottage, and this contract was made for Thomas
Antell by his son Robert, acting as the agen of lust
father, and made so ith the defendant, Charles
Roberts ; but on the Ist of August this same agent
told the defendant • that he may go about his
business,' and the question which we have to deter.
111010 is, whether in so leaving the service of Thomas
Antell, - the defendant. Charles Rolterts. felt anti
thmight that he had a right to do so; because if we
adjudge that lie had reason to think and at feel, then
the ' oleos rell: the 'guilty intent.' is wantinh, mid
the defendant is not guilty of misbehaviour, or of
a violation of his contriet of service ; anti especially
bee:inse the PIM of Thomas Alden, the complainant,
was the iiersen who had rel. mied the dofemtant from
li.. legal oldioation. Now the principle of law ap-
. plicable to this case, mei upon winch our judgment
is here founded, is hail down by the Justices of the
'I. of Queen's Bench, in the ease of Eider (appli-
cant) r. Wood and others (nsiliontlents), and which
ease WAS decided on the 16th of November, 15.59, in
wlich case Lord Chief Justice l'ocklnirn said—' If a
man absents himself with a knoa ledge that his etu•
ployment is not at an end, he is guilty under the
• statute. but if lie believes that his contract is at an
end, and so leaves, he is not guilty.' In the case be.
fore us, therefore, and 011 the above recited doctrine,
1 we are unanmiimomisly of ot that Charles Roberta
had a right to consider that he was authorised by
Robert Antell to leave Thomas Antell's service;
and that in so leaving that service he was not guilty
of misbehaviour or viokitit in of his contract of service,
and we therefore adjudge that the said defendant,
Charles Roberts. may go quit.