The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-22 00:00:00

HALL AND OTHERS V. TAYLOR AND OTHERS.

Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Hayes, and
Mr. Field appeared for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Boden,
Q.C., and Mr. Stephen for the defendants.
This was an action brought by the plaintiffs,
who were owners of a mine called the Hill-top
Mine,to use an ancient drain which they complained
that the defendants had obstructed.

In consequence of the length of time likely to be
occupied in trying the above cause, which it is ex-
pected will last fully two days and of the amount
of criminal business yet remaining, her Majesty's
justices have availed themselves of their power
under the 3d George IV., cap. 10, to postpone the
commission day at Warwick until Monday next.
That Act limits the power of postponement to 24
hours, but provides also that Sunday shall not be
taken into the computation.
A telegram has been sent to the High Sheriff of
Warwickshire informing him of the postponement,
and directing that the grand jurors be summoned
for Tuesday morning.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-SHREWSBURY,MAB,2O,

CIVIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron Channell and a Common Jury.

LEWTS V. PLACEY;

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Gray appeared
for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Pigott and Mr.
W. H. Cooke for the defendant.

The plaintiff in this action, G. W. Lewis, is a
grocer and provision dealer at Broseley, in this
county, and he sued the defendant, William Placey,
a pork butcher at Stroud, in Glocestershire, to re-
cover damages for the breach of covenant in a deed
of apprenticeship, in removing his (defendant's) son
from the plaintiff's service before the expiration of
the term. The defendant pleaded several pleas,
alleging several grounds of justification, and among
others, that the terms of the apprenticeship
were that the plaintiff should exclusively employ
the apprentice in the business of a grocer and pro-
vision dealer, but that the plaintiff entered into and
carried on divers other trades and businesses, to wit,
the trades and businesses of a builder, brickmaker,
ironmonger, miller, and Methodist preacher, in
which said trades and business exclusively he em-
ployed himself and his apprentice, and neglected to
instruct the apprentice in the trade and business of
a groees and provision dealer.
It appeared the defendant's son was apprenticed
to the plaintiff in June, 1860, with a small premium
of £2O, and finally left in the beginning of the pre-
sent year. This arose from certain differences which
had arisen between the young man and his master,
who would not allow his apprentice to swear, and
required him to go to the Methodist Chapel twice
on Sunday, according to the understanding which
the plaintiff said had been entered into when
the deed of apprenticeship was agreed to.
The trial occupied the whole day, the object of the
plaintiff's evidence being to make out that the
young man was taken away without any sufficient
cause; and that of the defendant's to show that the
plaintiff was too strict, and, on one occasion in par-
ticular, had gone out to fetch a policeman to give
the young man into custody, merely because he had
said " d—," and refused to come indoors and go to
bed at ten o'clock at night. 4
In the result the jury found for the plaintiff—
Damages, £35 10s.