The Express.
London, England, 1864-09-22 00:00:00

Tula CONVICTION 03 13AA0 WATSON.

The case of Isaac Watson, before the justices at
Dellisld, is commented on by the iohcir,rs' Joarrad, which
impugns the cooricum under the stain. referred to—the
4th George IV., c. 34—" far disobeying the ordered his
employer, to whom he had hired himself for a year, and
who desired him to attend a dam of worship once //Very
SODday.° The Solicitors' Journal says :
"Sash • thing has been beard of u ' driving a coach and
fear through as act of podium's,' and act enfrequeatly
are men met with is which the laws have bees panerted to
effect an object
thma of DriMeld appear to have made themselves parties
to an attempt to make • mu religious by set
of pediment, and, is ea doing, hare, u we
humbly admit, perverted the meaning of the 4th
George IV., a 34. We presume it is intended that the
dream charged comes within the words of the third
endue of the act, which says, that if any servant, he., shell
mama with any payee to serve him, and shall not enter
into his service sesording to his oontrait (such contract being
in writing), or having entered, shall abort himself,wbether
such contract be in writing or not, or neglect to fulfil the
same or be guilty of any other inimeduct or misdemea-
nour in the execution thereof, or otherwise respecting the
same, thus the justice may lieu. a warrant upon a com-
plaint being modem oath. Upon proof being made of the
dime Merged, the judo, may commit the prisoner to hard
labour for Wee menthe, or may abate the whale or pert of
hie wages far the time of his Amami, or may discharge the
coattail. New, it does ao4 appear that the offence
charged was onetemplated by the Astute. In the Ernt
place, it is not probable that the servant agreed in writa,4
to go to dierdi every fineday, and the preramptivu
from the showing of these lettere' is that no such contract
existed. Was Isaac Wotan guilty of soy neglect in the
fulfilment of his contrast, or frailty of any other miscot.
duct, or misdemeanour in the execution thereof, or other.
wise respecting the same" The offence charged was not
within his contract for service, and therefore could not
have come wider this clause of the section. To anyone
reading the third section of the ad, of which we have given
an sbruipmeete it must appear evident that no such offence
es
charged is within the statute. The justice is to issue his
warrant to apprehend the edfeadsr—no=zli said of a
summons in the drat inetamm—deady that the
shown of the servant from his ad/mu west labour is
being guarded against. Then, agaia, the miablunent to be
awarded shows the same intent—iseprimmeamet with herd
.

labour, or a Ise of which the mauler is to map the baedt.
Clearly, if a tom is at church le cannot be &gag work on
farm, and therefore the armor would kr that time lose
the bemplit of the earrant's work ; but this does not appear
to have been the oempisien hers. The meager lost nothing
by the Nermat's abeam from church. This not was pared
to protein melon from lose by reason of a aerrant's cos-
000doct in hie servkit, and not for mob a purpose as it has
now been perverted to. The etaternest in the Mamma
Towashowes Leiner to Sir George Grey is very Mon, and
may not contain the terms of the easteassi prosonnowl upon
the offender in their entirety ; bat we apprehend that the
pastime bare popover under this eel to ardor the prieeoar to
attend ointrek. There is a civil remedy to agape the per.
formate, of a contract ; bat this Appian to hare been
one of throe oases, now so bequest, M which p- Dal
Mutate has been resorted to far the purpose of enforcing
civil right."