The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-11 00:00:00

had been levying wholesale cpntributions upon the
public by fictitious statements,
His worship was, about dealing with the case
summarily, when
Fryer asked An* a mend, as he believed there
were other cases.
Remanded accordingly.

MASTER, WORKMAN, AND APPR.Eic:

TICE.-GILES v. BRINUE.

On Saturday, Mr. John Frederick Bringe, en-
gineer, 25, Fieldgate-street, Whitechapel, appeared
before Mr. Yardley, at the Thames police court, to
answer a suramons which charged him with unlaw-
fully neglecting and refusing to pay John Giles, an
apprentice in his employ, the sum of 2s. Bd. justly
due to him under his indenture.

The question which the magistrate had to try in
this case, was the right of the apprentice to wages
on Christmas-day, when he did no work.
The defendant said the apprentice was only en-
titled to wages under the indenture while he was
at work.

.Mr. Yardley said the apprentice was entitled to
16s. per week in the 'third year of his apprentice-
ship. A week consisted of seven days, but no
apprentice or workman engaged by the week could
be compelled to work on Sundays. Christmas-day
was a holiday prescribed by law, and the defendant
was not entitled to stop a day's pay in consequence
of the absence of the apprentice on that day.
The Defendant—The words of the indenture are
" whilst at work." He was not at work on Christ-
mas-day, and is therefore not entitled to the day's
pay he now claims.
Mr. Yardley said the defendant was wrong in his
conclusions. The lad was paid by the week, but he
did not work on Sundays, and nothing was stopped
for his absence every Sabbath-day. By parity of
reasoning a day's pay could not be stopped for not
working on Christmas-day, which was a sacred day,
enjoined'by the law of the country to be kept as a
holy day, and observed as a festival, but still kept
holy by law as much as Sunday. The apprentice
was exempt from work on Christmas-day as well
as Sunday.
The Defendant—We are often required to finish
engines and machinery on Christmas.day.
311 r. Yardley—Did you ask him to work on
Christmas-day ?
The Defendant—No' I did not. The factory and
workshops were closed.

Mr. Yardley—You cannot punish the lad for not
working on Christmas-day. Yon must pay him
2s. Bd., and 2s. the cost of the summons.

The defendant pertinaciously contended that the
apprentice was not entitled to the money and that
he fell short by ten hours of the work he ought to
have done for the week ending December 25.
Mr. Yardley—l am very much surprised, Mr.
Bringe, you should resist this claim, and I hope
there is not another man in the district that would
do it. No doubt the lad is entitled to the day's
pay.
The Defendant—The indenture says that while
at work he is to be paid, and you say that when he
is not at work he is to be paid.
Mr. Yardley—To carry out your argument, the
apprentice ought only to, be paid six-sevenths of
his week's wages, because he does not work on
Sunday.
The Defendant—No, no, no.
Mr. Yardley—Christmas-day is the same as
Sunday.
The Defendant—You mean to say I am to pay
him for Christmas-day ?
Mr. Yardley—Yes, certainly. How can you
resist it ?
The Defendant—Then I will appeal. I will
appeal to the Quarter Sessions.
Mr. Yardley—Appeal where you like, sir.
The defendant (passionately)—l will. I will
appeal. It is a most unjust decision.
Mr. Yardley—Appeal away, sir. I have given
my decision, and there is an end to the case.
Yesterday two other summonses against the same
'defendant came on for hearing, and Mr. Bringe,
jun., his son, attended to defend them.
James Richards, an iron-moulder, said he claimed
19s. 4d. for work done as an artificer. He was
engaged by the defendant at 6s. per day, and was
at work on Monday and Tuesday in last week, and
also part of Wednesday, when he asked the defen-
dant for 10 d. he had deducted for some work-he
alleged to have been spoiled on the 24th of Dec.
The defendant refused to pay him the money, and
instantly discharged him.
Mr. Bringe, jun. said the complainant had been
offered 15s. 2d., which was all that was due to him,
for he only worked up to half-past eleven o'clock
on the morning of Wednesday, and was entitled
to be paid for two days and four and a half hours'
work.
Mr. Yardley—lf a man is engaged by the day
he must be paid by the day. You can't discharge
a man in the middle of the day and pay him for a
fraction of a day. If a man is engaged by the
week he must be paid by the week.
The Complainant—To oblige Mr. Bringe, sen.,
we worked an hour and a half beyond our regular
time on the 24th, and the pipe we made turned out
a bad job.
Mr. Bringe, jun.—lt was worthless.
The Complainant—ln moulding, your worship
must be aware that accidents will arise, even when
the greatest skill and attention is applied.
Mr. Bringe, jun.—lt was carelessness.
The Complainant—lt was not, indeed. The fore-
man said it was his fault, and took the whole blame
upon himself.

Mr. Yardley said the defendant could enter into
any contract he liked with his workmen. If the
complainant left voluntarily, before the completion
of his day's work, he would be entitled to nothing ;
but as he had been discharged after he had been at
work four hours and a half, he was entitled to the
whole of the day's pay. Some employers of labour
in the district engaged. labourers by the hour, but
they could not, after fifteen minutes had elapsed,
discharge a man and only pay him for a quarter of
an hour's work. • He ordered the defendant to pay
18s. for three days' work, and the 101 d.• he had
deducted on the 24th of December, and Bs. costs.
Mr. Bringe, jun.—We will not pay it.
Mr. Yardley—My order is for 265. 101,-d. hi all,
and if it is not paid a distress warrant will be
issued, and the amount will be levied on your
father's goods and chattels, but I do hope that
alternative will not happen.
John Giles, the apprentice, was the next com-
plainant. The summons charged the defendant,
that he did neglect to teach the complainant his
business as an iron moulder, pursuant to the terms
of his indentures of apprenticeship.
Giles said that he asked his master to allow him
to attend the Thames Police Court to ask advice as
to whether he Ought to be paid 2s. Bd. for Christmas-
day or not, to which his master replied " Certainly
not, I shall not allow you to go there." On Thursday
his master refused to allow him to proceed to work,
and he had been out of employment ever since.
Mr. Bringe, jun., said his father told the appren-
tice he was not to be paid for Christmas day, and in
spite of what he said a summons was taken out for
2s. Bd.
Mr. Yardley said he had decided on Saturday
that the apprentice was to be paid 2s. Bd. for
Christmas•day, although not employed on that
day. He was now -very much surprised to hear that
the apprentice had been discharged because he
sought legal redress. The consequence would be
that Mr. Bringe would have to pay the apprentice
for every day he was without work. The master
ought to recollect where he was living—in what
part of the world he was in. England was certainly
not a slave State, nor were the apprentices and
labourers serfs, as they were in a country far north.
The apprentice had a :right to seek redress in that
court. When a master entered into a contract he
was as much bound by it as the apprentice. The
master was not a lawless despot, but must conform
to the law. The absence of the apprentice to seek
redress was perfectly lawful. He did hope, for the
sake of the defendant himself, that he should hear
no more of such proceedings as these, and that this
was the last of it. Not only was the master bound
to pay the apprentice for the days he had been
without work, owing to the unlawful act of the
master, but Mr. Bringe should be made aware that
he was liable to an action for breach of covenant,
in the County Court.
Mr. Bringe, jun.—We shall take 'counsel's opi-
nion. We shall most certainly not pay the money
for Christmas day, or any day he was not at work.
Mr. Yardley—You must employ the apprentice
and teach_him his trade.
Mr. Livingston (the chief usher) asked the magis-
trate if he would make an order.
Mr. Yardley—No, no ; it does not require an
order. I hope the master's good common sense and '
discretion will urge him to do what is right in the
matter, without being compelled. If my decisions
are reversed by a proper authority I shall bow to
the decision, but I shall be very much surprised
indeed if the opinion I gave on Saturday is not
maintained in the highest court in the realm.
Mr. Bringe, jun.—Will you allow me to ask you
a few questions ?
Mr. -Yardley—l do not sit here to be questioned.
Well, go on ; what is it ?
Mr. Bringe, jun.—Can an apprentice lawfully
refuse to come to the factory a few minutes before'
the men come to work to see that theN te
firesminuares
lighted properly, and refuse to stay a few
after the men have left in the evening to see the
fires put out ?

Mr. Yardley would have a very bad opinion of
apprentice who refused to do that. Apprentices
should not pay a reluctant and sluggish obedience
to the requests of their masters, but a cheerful