The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-04 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.-NEWCASTLE, MARCH 1.
WOOD V. FENWICK AND OTHERS.

The plaintiff in this case is a lad of eighteen years of age, a
" putter," as it is called, in the West Cramlington Colliery.
The defendants are Magistrates who meet in petty sessions at
Tynemouth. The action was brought to recover compensation
in damages for the alleged illefral imprisonment of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, it appeared, had, with a number of other in-
dividuals, entered into what is called a pit bond, engaging
them to work at certain wages for the owners of the West
Cramlington Colliery, from the Ist of April, 1840, to the Ist
of April, 1841. The plaintiff continued to work under this
agreement up to July, 1840. On the3lat ofJuly a strike took place.
The pits continued idle till the sth of August, when a consi-
derable number returned to work. The plaintiff, among the rest,
wrought until the 7th of August, which was the Friday, on
which day he went to Mr. Taylor, who was a son of one of the
proprietors, and superintended the working, of the pit. He
said, "Mr. Taylor, I will consider myself free from this even-
ing." On the Monday the plaintiff did not return to his work,
and on the Tuesday, a warrant having been applied for, he was
taken before the present defendants, sitting at Tynemouth in
stk
Petty Sessions, and charged under the statute with having im-
properly left his employment. The defendants committed him
to the House of Correction of Tynemouth for the period of one
aru
wrok mronrteht.urnlend t n
the e
theirmeantime
emptiho
ye
mother
aand personsthe whoplaintiff
nhtai
ffd
himself, on the expiration of his imPrisonme'nt, preferred act-
ing as " putter" in the coalpit to being committed for another
month, wt ich it appears would have been the consequence of
Mr. GRAINGER
his refusal.
, whiclein
itnhasltating the case to the Jury, submitted,
The Learned Counsel employment,
on the point of law'
as he had done, by notice.
it was competent to the plaintiff to
he
into the question of the
put an end to his own
amount c-f damages
not be vindictive, should ample,esubmitted, while they shou'd
to the plaintiff for the loss of il,l and a full compensation
fering which had been inflicted on him.t.ty and the personal suf-
Witnesses in support of plaintiff's s
having
been called,
and Mr. Alexander having addressed he, t ~ Jury for the defen-
dants,
Mr. Justice Mance said he was of opinion that the question
was one of law for the Court, and that the contract mustbe
clearly beneficial to bring it within the rule. In
- cas'
ho
w_
ever, h the Jury might be
taken on that point, and the whole might be embodied in a
special case for the opinion of the Court above.
Mr. GRAINGER having addressed the Jury on this point,
and on the ground of the amount of damages, his Lordship
summed up, and the Jury, after retiring to consult, brought
in a verdict, in case the Court above should find the point of
law in favour of the plaintiff, of 5/. damages, expressieg also
their opinion that the contract was for the benefit efit of the infant.
A similar ease, in which another " putter"
in the same col-
liery was plaintiff, and the ' same Magistrates defendants
W ood t Fenwiek. it was
agreed should share the fate of ~
cases of no public importance
Before Mr. Baron Rolfe a few