The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1881-03-15 00:00:00

COUNTY PETTY SESSIONS.
BATU 'WAY.

Before IL B. Iliddlaton Ely Captain Manuel. IL B.
Mudslide',ag. G.
B
ILlPaarca, w. g„,.,U. Warr/. Lg.. and

• IMICIIMOUR'S suusseLE.
lietllda Lake was summoned for using libellous sepses-
Moos towards Mary DowelL
The patties live at Weldon Newton.
Mary Dowell complained of abuain language on ths
part of the defaudnat.
A number of witneases were called on both skim, but
the particulars are most discredttable.
Tho Bench ordered the defendant to be bound over in
the sum of £lO to keep the peace for twelve months.

TIMPOILART TPANSILL.
Mr. R. N. Howard applied for the temporary thunder of
U. 'llya' Exchange publichouse. Weston, Patland, from
Alexander Cox to Charles Wallbrolde.
Granted.

CLOTHIER.. CANE.
TbToh.is acLionbrought by Mr. William Clothier
shoemaker, of Portland, against an apprentice named
cloformerly.4.ga inmate at Muller's Oreimege.
at Bristol, tor unlawfully leaving his service, for which he
Mr. R. N. Howard was for the plaintiff. and Mr. K. C.
Weston for the defendant.
At toe opening Mr. Weston raised a preliminary objec-
tion, Nieuwe the nese bad already been beard and decided.
The mime case was brought before the magistrates at
Weymouth, on August 27th last, and dismissed.
Mr. Howard argued that at the previous hearing the
objection was raised that the indenture Itad not • stamp.
This m mar wee referred to the Inland Revenue author-
Wee at Somerset Howie, and they had decided it required
no stamp.
Mr. Weston maintained that the present ries was of
the nature of an appeal, and, instead of coming here, the
other side should have gone to • Superior Court and upset
the decision of the magistrates. And than there wee
another objection—in the first summons tne Amager
were laid at £5, whereas now it was CIO.
With regard toil'. latter point, Kr. 'toward asked leave
to amend the claim, and reduce it to X& Referring to the
first objection, he wished to point out there was no adjudi-
cation on the merits of the owe, the minutes showing
there wee no evidence taken.
The Bench overruled both these objections which Mr.
Weston had raised.
Mr. Weston then took objection to the jurisdiction of
the Bench. The case should have been decided by the
Yeovil magistrates, instead of the Dorchester.
This objection was ultimately overrated.
Yr. William Clothier WM then celled, and stated he
resided at Wakehain, Portland. and had lived there clogs
upon 30 years, He was a waster shoemaker, and the
defendant was apprenticed to him on March 1,3. ISA bir
Kr. George Muller. the director of the new Orphans.
Houses, BrhstoL
Mr. Weston then objected that the indenture WM IA
stamped.
Mr. Howard, in reply, maintained that it required le
stamp, and in support quoted a latter from the Somerset
House Authorities, in which it wee stated that within the
meaning of the exemption, under the heading apprentice-
ship, in the schedule of the Stamp Act, 1820, Pollapprestiii
from a public charity required no stamped indenture.
Mr. Weston maintained that it was not an endowed sad
enrolled charity.
Kr. Howard said Muller's Charity was known throagh.
out the length and breadth of the land as • great Puble
Institution.
Mr. Weston: But Mr. Mailer Is still living, and he may
withdraw his subscription to-morrow. If this had been a
public charity I would not hays troubled you for • minds.
It was a voluntary movement on the part of Mr. Muller,
who might withdraw his support at any moment.
Mr. Howard called Mr. Clothier, who gave evidence a.
to the nature of the charity. He had been to Bristol
twice, and knew the charity perfectly well. He did sot
know Mr. Moller, but he knew the other directors. Kr.
Muller was Is America at the present time. The charity
wee managed by directemand supported entirely by Telma.
tary subscriptions. He also gave • description of the
buildings themselves and the general working of the
charity. A yearly report was published.
In reply to Mr. Weston, Mr. Clothier said Mr. Muller
was • -poor German men, and had no money," and did
not have anything to do with the support of the charity.
Mr. Weston argued Mr. Clothiers evidence was only
hearsay. There were no documents produced.
The Bench decided it was a public charity, and that
therefore the indenture did net require • stamp.
Mr. Clothier then continued hie evidence. The boy
entered his house and he taught him his trade up to the
28th of June last. On that day he was at Weymouta, and
on his return be found the boy wee goes. Helen without
his sanction. He hart not done anything to canes him to
leave. From enquiries be made he found he but gone to
Yeovil. Witness went to West Coker, near Yeovil, and
asked the boy to return. He refused to go back, bat
mule no complaint whatever. He had not been to his
service since. The Itty was beginning to be very useful In
his work, and he had taken great pains to %tech him.
For loos of service and travelling expenses he claimed £5.
The boy's uncle, be believed. WM now employing him as
• carpenter at West Coker.
Mr. Weston asked witnesi if he signed the indenture,
In reply, he said "Of course I did."
Being pressed, however, by Mr. Weston on this Point,
he, after some hesitation, admitted he did not email&
write it, but it was signed by his son with his full
authoriiv.
Mr. Weston maiattined this was fatal to the plaintiff's
case.
Mr. Howard. however, argued that Mr. Clothier's signa-
ture was not necessary.
The Bench concurred with Mr. Howard, being of
opinion that the plaintiff wee snouts on the boy's
covenant.
Mr. Weston (to plaintiff): Will you swear the indenture
was read over to the boy before he signed it I
Plaintiff: Yee • in the school as well.
Mr. Weston: ''ho were present
Plaintiff: Kr son, myself, end the boy.
Mr. Wastes: Did you use ikny inducement to get him
to Min 11l
Plaintiff: No, there was no need of it
Mr. Weston: Did he complain of any ill usage I
plaintiff: No, never in his life; it was quits the reveres
of that.
Mr. Weston: What did you employ him at beside the
shoe work I
Plaintiff : Onlt shoemaking.
Mr. Weston: Did you employ him to scrub the front

she' 1
eintiff Tea, but iss did it of his own frth will He
has never objected to it.
Mr. Weston: Has he ever complained to you of not
having enough food I
Plaintiff : Never in his life.
Mr. Weston : What made him run away 1
Plaintiff : I can't say; boys will von ot
In reply to Kr. Howard, the plaintiff stated the boy was
with him a, month before the indenture was signed.
Thoophfins Clothier. who Ls in partnership with his
father, gave corroborative ovideace.
Thomas Cave said be was 15 years old in November.
From his earliest recollection he was at the Orphan
Institution. at Bristol. From Bristol be went to Portland
to blr. Clothier. He signed the indenture (produced) in
the presence of Yr. Clothier and his son ; but about •
week before he signed it he said he did not want to sign it
because the son teased hint so. They had told hip) Mr.
French, the clerk of the school at Bristol, was corning, and
he had made up his mind to tell him. He signed the
indenture before it was read over to him. He did not
sign it willingly. Hs told Theophilus he did not wish to
sign it. They treated him very kindly at first, but after-
wards they treated him badly, and made him bomb the
bedrooma. When he left Portland he went to Wed Coker,
where his uncle and sisters lived. Rig uncle had WY on
him, and took him in.
Mr. Howard contended there was note MU* of evil:tenth
to lustily the boy absconding.
After • leo y consultation, the Chairman said the
carefully considered the evidenos, and had
diellicistie ceder Thomas Cave to return to the marries of
William Clothier, and complete the term of his -
tioeship. They had had difficulty in arriving at a
because they were of opinion it was very unwise on the
p irt of the Orphanage uthorities to allow a boy of Wen.
aims'e age to sign an Indenture without having anyone at
hand to advise him. They thought the boy should have
had an opportunity of (*IUDs thrice beforelte bound him-
self for fire years to Yr. Clothier. At the same time the
defendant had put his signature to the deed and must
abide by it. As to damages, the Boo& yap, of opinion
none to any appreciable extent bad been proved, and they
should not therefore make an order.
Mr. Howard said, with regard to the prsetice of the
Orphanage Authorities in respect of the children they
apprenticed or put out to *orrice, they stipulated that at
the first month the child should write to the institution
and state bow he or she got on, and, prior to the child's
leaving the Orphanage, the Indenture was reed over and
thoroughly explained. If defendant in this case had com-
plained to the authorities at the sloes of the first mooth,
they would here supplied him with the UMW of return-
ing to the hones.
Yr. Minders*/ said he believed grass nosiest was often
shown by these institutions in the apprenticing of the
children. They itht themselves in iseo persittis, and yet
allowed a boy to sign a paper of this kind, away from all
friends and adelsen. It was evident thin wag a possi-
bility of compulsion being used Lad other alvantaget
buss taken of him, although be did not wish to impute
an of the sort in the present instance.
PllllOllOll

Humphrey Stamm. of Puddhotovro (auttoamor to
Ifii,Vonsai George). angled for • potrolimm lianas.
Granted

kinLIATION CUM.

Geort.Frassyton was sanuasog4l by Ellas I.4gg to show
Mr. Howard dafandad.
The care was dlantissad, owing to than sat Olaf
sufficient svidance.