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

POLICE INTELLIGENCE, Jan. 10.

MANSION-HOUSE.—John Incot, a Lascar, 30
years old, who has been repeatedly sentenced to
imprisonment for begging, was charged before
Mr. Alderman Carter with pursuing his old avoca-
tion on Saturday last in High-street, Aldgate.
The case was proved by Police-constable J. Smith,
667, who said that on the last occasion of the pri-
soner's being here, about three weeks ago, Sir It.
W. Carden, the then sitting magistrate, sent him
to the Union. The prisoner, however, refused to
remain there.
The prisoner pretended not to understand a word
of the evidence, but
Mr. Goodman, the chief clerk, informed Alder-
man Carter that when last at this court he not only
understood but spoke English perfectly well.
Alderman Carter—ls he ill Because I see his
head is covered with a large bandage.
Officer (removing the bandage)—No, he is not ill
at all, sir ; there is nothing the matter with him.
Prisoner—Oh, yes; my head. ache. (Laughter.)
Alderman Carter—lt appears that you are a
regular impostor. I shall commit you to prison for
14 days, with hard labour.

GUILDHALL.—Mr. W. Smith, residing at 97,
Murray-street, Holton, and carrying on business
as a publisher at 54, Paternoster-row, was placed
at the bar before Sir G. Carroll, charged with ob-
taining £lOO and upwards, by means of false pre-
tences, of the prosecutor,
Mr. Alex, liirk4lay, yrho repide in

Haverstock-street, City-road, but about four and a
half years ago, I carried on the business of a printer
at St. Mary-at-hill. In 1854 the old established
printing establishment, " Minerva," in Leadenhall-
street, was put up for sale, but as the capital
required was larger than I had at my command,
I advertised for a partner with from £1,500 to
£2,000, and I received a reply from the prisoner.
This was in August, 1854, and after I received
his letter I had a personal interview with him
at my office. He said he was nephew to the
Mayer of Oxford, and had £l,BOO in the Bank of
England, and that it was only necessary for him
to obtain the consent of his guardians, to become
my partner. He wished to get into a respect-
able way of business, as he was betrothed to a
young lady at Tavistock, with a fortune of £3,000,
but that her father would not allow the marriage
to take place until he was in some respectable way
of business. In the month of May following he
would come into property, derived from his father,
to the amount of £2,000 a year. I asked him why
he should go into business with such prospects, and
he said it was the whim of the lady's father to see
him in business before getting married. I found
him very short of money, and everything was ar-
ranged about the partnership, except putting in a
paper. He said his trustees would in a few days
be up in London, and he would have the command
of some of his money. His trustees did not come,
and he then wanted some money, and we drew a
couple of bills, one for £75, which I have now.
Mr. Martin, Chief Clerk—Did you pay the pri-
soner any amount of money ?
Complainant—No, sir ; but I have paid money to
other persons, in consequence of these representa-
tions. I have paid £lOO and upwards to others,
and it is his defalcations that have cost me that
money. I paid £BO for the account of the " Minerva"
Office. The proprietor owed me that amount. I gave
the prisoner into custody for this money. I have
only seen the prisoner once since, and that was in
an omnibus last summer, but I made no charge
against him. None of this money I believe went
into the prisoner's pocket. I never paid the prisoner
any money, but have been robbed of £lOO by his
devices. Some of the bills were dishonoured, but I
had to pay one of them. The bill was given to Mr.
Parry, and the prisoner accepted it jointly with me.
Sir George Carroll—You have come to the wrong
court. You have preferred a criminal charge where
you have only a civil remedy.
Prisoner—Will you allow me to state, sir, my
version of this matter ? In 1853 I was in London,
and having a practical knowledge of the printing
business, I replied to Mr. Kirkaldy's advertisement,
and told him if it was a good thing I could find the
money, but the matter dropped in consequence of
the bankruptcy of Mr. Parry and Mr. Kirkaldy ;
and if I have seen him once since I have seen him
at least fifty times, and he has never made any
charge against me until this morning, and I do not
think he would then if he had not been drinking.

Sir George Carroll—l have no jurisdiction in fhe
matter, and however correct Mr. Kirkaldy's state-
ment may be, it will not justify me in dealing with
the case.

The prisoner was therefore discharged.
Henry Jackson and John Hyde were charged be.
fore Alderman Mechi with stealing a bundle of
printed paper, value £l4, the property of Mr. Agg,
a bookbinder, of Dorset-street, Salisbury-square.
It appeared that the prisoner Jackson was hired
by a bookfolder employed by Mr. Agg, to fetch the
papers, but instead of returning with them he
took them to Field-lane, where he met with Hyde,
and the two agreed to sell the paper and divide
the proceeds between them. -Witnesses, who
heard the arrangement made, were examined,
and the evidence of the person who bought the paper
having been taken, the prisoners were fully com-
mitted for trial ; Jackson for stealing the paper,
and Hyde for receiving it knowing it to be stolen.
Morris Griffiths was summoned for not support-
ing his -wife.
Mr. Beard appeared for the defendant.
Mary Griffiths, the complainant, stated she had
been separated from the defendant about 12 months,
and received ss. per week up to the 3d April last,
but nothing since.
Cross-examined—She had been several times in
prison since April last; once for seven days, once
for four months, once for three months, once for six
weeks, and once for a month. They were for bail
and for beating two females. She had never com-
mitted adultery with a man named Holmes.
Mr. Beard said the character of this woman must
be evident to the Court from her own admissions
alone, but he would call the man Holmes, who would
prove the charge of adultery, which would relieve
the defendant of all legal responsibility with regard
to this woman.
Geo. Holmes was accordingly examined, and ad-
mitted that the complainant had committed adul-
tery with him.
Haines, 166 G, the acting gaoler at Worship-
street, said he remembered the complainant being
committed from that court about five months ago,
on which occasion she made use of a most filthy
expression, intimating that she had been guilty of
an improper intimacy with Holmes, and would be
again as soon as she came out.
Sir George Carroll said, after what he heard in
this case, he must decline to make any order, and
the summons was therefore dismissed.

BOW-STREET.—A boy named John Damworth
was charged with stealing a silk handkerchief from
the pocket of Dr. Carr, late Bishop of Bombay, and
rector of Bath.

A gentleman named Hills stated that he was
leaving the Union Club about 4 o'clock that after-
noon, when he saw the prisoner pick the bishop's
pocket of a silk handkerchief. He took to his heels,
but being pursued and hard pressed he threw the
handkerchief away. Witness took it up and gave it
to the owner.
Policeman Dowsett, A 76, caught the prisoner
and took him ixto custody.
Bishop Carr identified the handkerchief, and
stated that the prisoner appealed to his clemency,
saying that he did it for want of food. He (the
bishop) had no wish to press the case harshly, but
would be glad if the prisoner could be got into a
reformatory.
Mr. Jardine would see what could be done.

Policeman Ayliffe, 36 A, stated that he searched
the prisoner and found a very good silk handker-
chief tied round his legs.
The Prisoner—Please, Sir, I always wears one
to keep my leg warm.
Mr. Jardine—lt shows that your story about doing
it because you were hungry, cannot be true, for
here you had a handkerchief worth several shillings,
which was quite useless to you. I must remand
you for further inquiry.
John Jones, a young man; was charged with
several assaults committed while in a state of
drunkenness, on Saturday night. _ _

The prisoner entered the Fountain publichouse,
Wych-street, with another man, whom he wanted
to toss for a sovereign. The other refused, and the
prisoner knocked him down. Thomas Clothier, the
barman, interfered, and was in turn assaulted. He
put the prisoner out of the house, but the latter en-
tered again and jumped on the counter. Clothier
knocked him off; and again put him out. Prisoner
dragged Clothier out with him, and a scuffle ensued.
Sergeant Felton, 16 F, and Constable Fitzgerald,
75 F, who came to Clothier's assistance, were so vio-
lently assaulted that both were disabled from duty.
Mr. Jardine sentenced the prisoner to 14 days'
imprisonment.

WESTMINSTER.—A CHARGE OF ROBBERY
AGAINST Two SOLDIERS. Robert Stone and
Henry Mills, privates of the Coldstream Guards,
were charged with stealing a watch and chain from
the person of Alexander Braid.
The prisoners and the prosecutor were drinking
on Sunday night, at a publichouse in Pimlico, and
the latter becoming much intoxicated wanted to
go home. This the prisoners prevented his doing,
and dragged him into a coffeehouse, where Stone
took the watch and guard from him while he was
asleep, and endeavoured to induce a woman who
was in their company to take it, which she, how-
ever, refused. The whole party then went out,
when, on a friend of the prosecutor's coming up, the
prisoners hastened away, but were followed and
captured, and the watch and chain were found on
Stone, who had endeavoured to beat the police off
with his belt.

Stone said he helped himself to the man's watch
merely to take care of it for him, as he was drunk.
The other prisoner made no defence.
They were committed for trial.

MARYLEBONE.—BRUTAL ASSAULT EY A RE-
TIRED TRADESMAN ON HIS DAUGHTERS.-Mr. E.
Perrin, a retired tradesman, living with his family
at No. 10, Park-road, Regent's-park, was brought
before Mr. Broughton, sharged with drunkenness
and seriously assaulting Harriet, his daughter, a
respectably-dressed young woman, 20 years of age.
Complainant gave evidence which went to show
that her father was continually getting drunk, and
assaulting her in a most savage manner. On Satur-
day night last he came home in his usual state of
intoxication, and had not been long in doors when
he made his way into the kitchen, after abusing her
(complainant) without any provocation. He re-
turned with a bowl full of water, the contents of
which he threw over one of her sisters, and the
bowl at herself. He next, in a great rage, seized
her by the hair of the head, a considerable portion
of which he pulled out by dragging her forcibly
about the room, and he struck her a violent blow
on the eye with his fist.
It was further shown that upon the occa-
sion alluded, to, Selina, the sister o complainant,

was compelled to strike her father with a poker
in order to make him let go his hold of com-
plainant's hair. He had often, while under
the influence of drink, assaulted her mother,
and on Friday last he knocked out one of her teeth,
but she did not then give him in charge. She had
often forgiven him for his ill treatment towards
her. When taken into custody by Kimber, 65 D,
on Saturday night, he said he would kill some of
them before it was all over. • _

The prisoner, in answer to the charge, denied
that he was drunk, and accused his wife and
daughters of misconduct. What he did was in
self-defence.

Mr. Broughton fined him £5, or two months'
imprisonment.
The penalty was paid.
INDECENT CONDUCT.—WiIIiam Duke, described
as a woollen draper, residing at 21, Rochester-
square, Camden-road Villas, and a young woman
named Mary Anne Lewis, were charged with in-
decent conduct in the Regent's Park, near the
Colosseum, on last Saturday night.
The prisoners both said they were very sorry,
the man alleging that he had taken too much wine
at a friend's wedding.
Mr. Broughton remarked that it was a pretty
way of commemorating a wedding ; and gave him
to understand that it was an offence for which he
was liable to have an indictment preferred against
him.
He was ordered to enter into his own recognis-
ance in £2O, and to find one surety in £lO, for his
appearance next Monday, and the woman was
committed for seven days.

SOUTHWARK.—FASHIONABLE SHOP-LIFTERS.
Charlotte Coley and Ann Bates, alias Brown, two
well-dressed females, known to the police as syste.
matic shop-lifters, were brought before Mr. Burcham
for further examination, charged with stealing two
pieces of ribbon from the shop of Mr. Edward
Trewby, linendraper, 136, Waterloo-road, Lam-
beth. _ _

Mr. Trewby said that on Saturday evening, about
eight o'clock, on the Ist inst., the prisoners came into
his shop and asked to be shown some ribbons. One
of his assistants placed a box full before them,
when, from their manner, he suspected them, and
was induced to watch. Perceiving Bates shift
something off the counter in a dexterous manner he
went up to her and told her to go to the end, of the
shop, and requested Coley to bring the basket to
the same place. With 'some reluctance they, re-
moved, and at the same time a constable came into
the shop, and then he found the two pieces of rib-
bon produced in the basket. He then gave them
into custody.
Mr. Burcham asked whether the prisoners had
purchased anything ?
Mr. Trewby replied in the negative. As soon as
they entered the shop he suspected them, and that
induced him to watch them.
George Osborne, 108 L, said that he took the
prisoners into custody, and when at the station-
house they were searched, and a piece of silk was
found on Coley, the property of Mr. Bland, a linen
draper, at Lambeth, but that gentleman was not in
attendance.
Several constables from the various divisions were
in attendance, and identified the prisoners as being
connected with a gang of shoplifters chiefly carry-
ing on their depredations in Whitechapel and the
north-eastern part of the metropolis.
Mr. Burcham committed them for trial, but
directed them to be brought up on Wednesday for
Mr. Bland's attendance.
CHARGE OF BURGLARY.—CharIes Shornden, an
active looking young fellow, well known as a com-
panion of house-breakers, was charged with being
concerned with two others in breaking into the
Red Lion beer-shop, Warwick-street, Borough-
road, and stealing therefrom wearing apparel,
valued at upwards 'of £5. -
Charles Llewenden, 228 M, said that shortly be-
fore six o'clock that morning, he was on duty in
Little Surrey-street, Borough-road, when he saw the
prisoner and two other men coming from the Red
Lion beer-house. The two latter were carrying a
bundle and a carpet bag, but as soon as they saw
him they threw them away and bolted. He seized
hold of one of them, when the prisoner picked up
the carpet bag and ran after the third. He struggled
hard with the man he held, and was compelled to
knock him down, when he pursued the prisoner
and captured him. The others escaped. The bundle
contained wearing apparel stolen from the Red
Lion.

Mr. John Mathew Westcott, said he held posses-
sion of the house in question, and fastened all up
safe about 12 o'clock last night. At seven he found
it had been entered, by breaking the kitchen win-
dow, when he missed the property produced.
Llewenden asked for a remand, to enable him to
apprehend the prisoner's companions.
Mr. Burcham accordingly remanded him for a
week.

HAMMERSMITH.—TRYING TO IMPOSE UPON
LORD MACAULAY.—APPREHENSION OF A NOTORI-
OUS BEGGING-LETTER IMPOSTOR.--A youth, named
John Clark, who walked into the court upon
crutches, and who appeared to be dressed as a
labourer, was placed in the dock before Mr.
Ingham, charged with obtaining money from Wm.
Read, Esq., one of the magistrates for the county
of Middlesex, by means of a begging letter.
The prosecutor, who gave his evidence from the
bench, deposed that he a justice of the peace, and
resided in the Addison-road, Kensington. That
morning about ten o'clock, the prisoner came to his
house, and was shown into the dining-room.
He presentedwitness with the following well-exe-
cuted petition, and also a letter, both of which
were placed in an envelope :

"Kensington, January, 3, 159,

" The • bearer, John Clark, a poor youth, of good cha-
racter, has recently met with a, misfortune whereby he
has entirely lost the use of his left leg, and is consequently
unable to obtain a livelihood in a standing position. He
is desirous of procuring an artificial arm Ny. ?), which
would cost six guineas, and £l2 to apprentice him to the
trade of a tailor, the amount required being £lB 6s. I have
been instructed to draw up this statement, with a view of
realising by voluntary contributions the required sum, and
therefore take upon myself the responsibility of so doing,
knowing the case to be one meriting sympathy.
" It. GREEN, Vestry Clerk."
The letter which accompanied it was to the fol-
lowing effect :

" Vestry-hall, Kensington, Jan. 8, 1859.
" Mr. Reuben Green presents his respects to W. Read,
Esq., and, at the entreaty of the bearer, begs to submit his
case for that gentleman's perusal, trusting the motive
which actuates him in 80 doing will be deemed an apology."

Witness believed, from circumstances that had
previously come to his knowledge, that the prisoner
was an impostor, and he asked him to walk into
the kitchen and he would give him something. He
then sent for the police to give him into custody,
and in the meantime he gave the prisoner ss.
Upon the arrival of a constable he handed him over
to his custody. Witness had been imposed upon
twice during the last Christmas, under similar cir-
cumstances, and he consequently was determined
to give the first into custody, or perhaps he might
have been led. to believe the prisoner, as the petition
was done exceedingly well.
Mr. Ingham asked the witness what part of the
petition induced the'witness to give the prisoner ss.
The Witness said he thought it was necessary to
give him the money to charge him.
Mr. Ingham said that in point of fact the witness
gave him ss. to complete the offence.
Police-constable Fletcher, and one of the sum-
moning officers of the Court, said he was called to
take the prisoner into custody, and as they came
along they met one of the Mendicity officers, who
identified the prisoner as an old offender. He
(witness) had since ascertained that the signatures
of the Duchess of Inverness and Mr. Slater were
false.

Mr. R. Green, the clerk of the Kensington ves-
try, was then called, and denied that the petition
or letter were in his handwriting. He said that he
knew nothing of the prisoner, but he was quite
aware for the last twelve months that there had
been a number of petitions purporting to emanate
from the vestry flying, about the parish. He held
in his hand a petition in the same handwriting,
dated 1857, purporting to be signed by order of the
vestry, and he was instructed to give notice to the
public, through his worship, that the vestry were
not in the habit of recommending cases of benevo-
lence.
Henry Grey, in the service of Lord Macaulay, of
Holly. Lodge, Kensington, deposed that about three
o'clock on Friday afternoon last the prisoner
brought a petition and a letter of recommendation
purporcing to have been written by the Rev. Mr.
Bu ckmaster.
Mr. Ingham put the petition received by Mr.
Read into the witness's hand, and asked him if it
Was like that one.
The witness said he believed it to be the same. At
that time his lordship was engaged, and he told
the prisoner to call again. The prisoner came the
second time; but his lordship refused to give any-
thing until he had written and ascertained whether
it was correct. He was to call this day, but in the
meantime his lordship wrote to the Rev. Mr. Buck-
master, and received a letter in reply, stating that
he knew nothing whatever of the case.
James Fryer, an officer belonging to the Mendi-
city Society, said he was making inquiries into a
similar case, when he met the prisoner in custody.
He had known him for the last four years, and he
had been committed by his worship, and also at
Marlborough-street, Marylebone, and Westminster
police courts.
Mr. Ingham said the last time the prisoner was
before him he had compassion upon him, and only
sent him for a short period of imprisonment ; but it
appeared that it had been all thrown away, as be

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

MASTER, WORKMAN, AND APPREN-
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 summons 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.
Mr. 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
Pal.
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.
Sunda3r.
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 101-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 102 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. 10d. in 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 lather 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 wasp erfectly 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. Bring() 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 the fires are
lighted properly, and refuse to stay a few minutes
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 muterts, but a cheerful