The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-02 00:00:00

NE TV COURT.

(Before the COMMON-SERGEANT and Mr. Alderman
MooN.)
Margaret Shelton was convicted of stealing a watch,
the property of Daniel King, from his person, and sen-
tenced to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour
William Mears, a botcher, and Robert Henderson, a
currier, were convicted of stealing at Camberwell 190
cigars, the property of Thomas Payne.
The COMMON-SERGEANT sentenced Henderson to three
months imprisonment and hard labour, and Mears, whc
had been twice before convicted, was sentenced to sever
years' transportation.

Edmund Eldrige, 25, a carpenter, was convicted of
stealing 3 lbs. weight of nails and screws, the property
of Thomas Joseph Ditchburn and others, his masters,
and sentenced to six days' imprisonment in Newgate.
William New, 21, an ostler, and George Ball, 26, a
chairmaker, were convicted of stealing a watch, a purse,
a half sovereign, four half-crowns, and other moneys,
the property of Wm. Baker, from his person, and sen-
tenced to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE
GUILDHALL.

Mr. Ward, of the firm of Ward and Co., letter-press
printers, Bear-alley, Farringdon- street, appeared to
answer a complaint made by Edward Billing, a journey-
man in the press department, for refusing to pay him
two weeks' wages, due under a hiring for eleven months
certain, and not yet completed.
Mr. Alderman Wood joined Mr. Alderman Hooper i
the further hearing of the complaint.
Mr. Wolfe supported the complaint, which was made
by the order of the Trade s Union; and Mr. Wilkins, a
solicitor, attended on behalf of Messrs. Ward, or rather
a body of master printers. Several masters and jour-
neymen were present.
Billing deposed that he entered the service of the de-
fendants nine months ago, and was employed on press-
work. In April an apprentice was taken, and a man
named Plummer was appointed to instruct him. Plum-
mer absented himself after a month, and complainant
was appointed to work with and instruct the boy. After
working two or three weeks, he beard that his employers
intended to place the boy under the tuition of an elder
apprentice, named Cooke, and, as he would not be made
a convenience of in this way, he immediatel
sought as explanation from his employer in the
counting-house. He asked how he was to consider him-
self to be engaged, for he had heard he was to be dis-
charged when the work was short, and Cooke was to be
put over the boy. Mr. Ward said he had no idea of
making such an alteration. Complainant understood
stereotype work, and working wood engravings, and
jobbing generally, and, so long as he attended to his time,
and attended to the boy, he should continue for the rest
of the twelve months. Witness immediately said, " And
have the two guineas ? " Mr. Ward replied, "Yes, ex-
actly the same as Plummer." This satkfied him com-
pletely, and he went to work. He entered on this con-
tract on the 13th of May, and worked till the 10th of
October. He had a fortnight's warning at the end of
September. He remonstrated on being so discharged,
as contrary to the custom of the trade, which was, that
a man who instructed a boy should be engaged for a
whole year, at fixed weekly wages, and
have two guineas
at the end of the term. Mr. Ward said he intended to
employ him again as soon as the work came in. He
now claimed to be paid wages as being hired for a year.
Ws wages were IL 12s. a week.
Benjamin Price, the apprentice, proved that he was
hound on the 7th of April; the complainant instructed
him; and that he was now working with an elder appren-
tice, who received 245. a week. No journeyman had
been taken in complainant's stead. There was only
work for the one press which he worked.
John Killingback, a master printer, the secretary to
the Pressman's Union, deposed to the custom of the
trade, which was, that when a boy Wai placed for instruc-
t= under a journeyman, it amounted to a tacit hiring
for a year, at fixed weekly wages. It was forced by
n.a.aters against the men to their annoyance. For in-
s.ar.ce, all the men at Norman's printing-office, in
Kaiden-lane, struck fur some cause, but he forced one
man to return back and do his work, because he had
contracted to bring up an apprentice for one year, and
to receive 21. 2,a at the end of that time. Again, a clever
hand desired to leave Mr. Whiting's, in Beaufort-build-
ing-a, in consequence of a dispute, but Mr. Whiting en-
forcA his return on the ground of having undertaken
to teach an apprentice, and that being a hiring fur the
y ear by the universal consent of the trade.
The fact appeared to make a great impression on the
mind of Mr. Alderman Hooper, who thought there
should be a reciprocity of advantages as between masters
and men.
The foreman was called by the defendant to show that
the complainant had spoiled some work, and from this
the solicitor inferred Mr. Ward was at liberty to termi-
nate the hiring for incompetence. The solicitor for the
defer tdant further denied that there was any such custom ;
that if his client had assented to the contract the corn-
plain. ant proposed to him, or, that if there were such a
cont; act, that it could not be enforced except by act i o

lie proposed to call a number of masters to deny the
custom. _

Mr. Wolfe proposed to call further evidence to prove
the competence of his client to teach ; but Mr. Ward had
employed Billing three months before he put him over
the apprentice, and therefore knew beforehand that he
was qualified.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said he was not satisfied with
the proof of the contract. It should have been reduced
to writing, as it was of some importance, and then it
could not have been alleged on one side and denied on
the other. He thought he ought not to extend the Act
to implied contracts and customs, especially where the
custom was disputable. He regretted that the workmen
continued to form unions which harassed the masters,
and in the end produced no pecuniary advantage to the
men, the expenses of maintaining the union counter-
vailing all the benefits. Free competition was the proper
law to obtain the best recompense for labour.
Mr. Alderman HooPza concurred in holding the proof
of a contract to be insufficient, and the case was dis-
missed.