The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-07-24 00:00:00

li.

drink. In answer to the charge, defendant said there
was one in the house, and there had been no drink drawn
sil.cc eleven o'clock. He and a neighbour had been
standing talking together at the door, and as the officers
came by his friend went off. He had kept a public-house
for ten years, and had never had anything against him
before. Mr. Hingley said the officer ceuld not prove that
the drink was drawn after eleven o'clock, and, therefore,
they should dismiss the case.
NEGLECT OF WORK.—Thomas Taylor, a young man
about 18 years of age, was charged by Joseph Merriss,
farmer, with absenting himself from his employ on the
12th inst, without his consent, and the latter claimed 10s
as compensation. From the evidence it appeared that
complainant engaged defendant in January last, and his
term of service was to continue up to next Michaelmas.
He was to receive three shillings per week, in addition
to his board and lodging. He left complainant's employ
without his consent, on the 12th inst. In answer to the
eherge, defendant said he was milking the cows on Wed-
nesday, the 7th bast, and one of the heifers kicked him
on the right edst, and hurt it. He went to Dr. Deeley
and had it set, and was unable to do any work with that
hand. He, however, slept at defendant's up to Monday,
the 12th inst. When he went to his master's house on
that night, Mr. Morriss said to would get a whip and beat
him off the premises. Complainant, in reply, said that
the defendant was hurt whilst milking one of the cows,
and went to a doctor and alleged that the latter told him
his wrist was put out, and that he was to do no work until
it was well. Accordingly, the latter did not ask him to
do any work, for some days. Eventually, denplainant's
wife saw the doctor, and asked him when defendant would
be able to resume work. The latter latter replied that
he knew nothing about the case, BB defendant had not
been to him. When she told this to complainant, he was
naturally indignant at being imposed upon, and he told
defendant that if he ite.ved him such a trick again, he
would whip him. The next morning defendant went off
and got a job of work at a coal pit. It was not the first
time defendant had served him a similar trick. Mr.
Ilingley told defendant he was a "peculiarly naughty
boy," and ordered him to pay ss, half the amount of
compensation claimed, and costs; in default 21 days.
ALLEGED DIBORDERLV CONDUCT—WiIIiam Blakeway,
a young man, was oharged with having been drunk and
disorderly at the Handel Hotel, Blackheath, on the Bth
May last. William Henry Liston, son of the landlord of
the above hotel, said defendant came there on the above
date, about nine o'clock at night. He behaved in a dis-
orderly manner, and grossly insulted the servants who
where in the kithen. He (witness) went and told him if
he did not behave himself he should put him out. He
went out, and witness also left the kitchen, and when be
returned two men, whom he believed were induced to de
so by defendant, set about him. These men were after-
wards summoned and one of them fined 5s and costs.
The other decamped. Defendant had also been away up
to the present time. In defence defendant said he was
a servant at the above hotel. Wlen he came into the
place it was a quarter past ten at night. Mr. Hingley
asked him what brought him there at that time of night,
and defendant said he had come for his wages. Mr.
Hingley asked why he was not paid, when mitness Liston
replied "Because he had not finished his work." Mr.
Hingley : "Then it is time it was finished." From fur-
ther explanations it appeared that defendant was ex-
pected to act as waiter on Saturday evenings, end was
not paid until the house was closed. Mr. Hingley (ad-
dressing Liston): Why did you not pay him his wages.
Instead of paying him his wages you quarrelled with him
VW. of all you must pay your servants' wages before you
quarrel with them. Mr. Hingley then asked if the ser-
vants were there, whom it was alleged defendant had in-
sulted, and on being informed that they were not, he
said he could not tell what was said to them without they
were there, and must dismiss the case.