The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-02-18 00:00:00

lIIEETECGS roa REPEAL OF ASSESSED TAXES.

•
Lest week. in consequence of Requisitions, numerously
and respectably signed, the Churchwardens of the pa
'rishes of St. James and Bathwick convened Vestry
Meetings, to consider the propriety of petitioning Par-
liament for a repeal or an abatement of the A.
Taxes, hut particularly the House and Window Taxes.
The Petitions were in both instances unanimously adopt-
ed; and we are happy to nnde rstAnd that the parisbes of
Sr. Michael and St. Peter and Paul are likewise about
ti meet: a vestry meeting of the former palish is called
*for Thursday next, with a view to petition not only for
-the repeal of taxes on Houses and IVindows, bat also the
vlaties on TrAvellers. Cle. Its, and Shopmen. We trust
these examples will be ext. naively followed; for al-
t*augh Ministers hive annonnced their intention of re-
mitting " a considerable portion of the Assessed Taxes,"
it:may hr well for the subjects respectfully to apprise
them what part of those taxes bear most oppressively
upon the commeinitv.—(Reading Mercury.)
We understand that at a vestry held yesterday, by the
parish of St. Peter and Prul, in this city, a Petition for
the reghtetion of the Assessed Taxes, especially those
which relate to housest windows, clerks, shopnien, &e.
„
as agreed to; which will be inserted in onr next, and is
t he sent round for general signature. The petitions on
tN.• same subject from the other parishes in this city, will
b' !bond in the preceding columns of this paper.—(BatA
&raid)

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Feb. 17.

SITTINGS 111.10 RR THS THREE PUISNIt JUDGES.
WINSTONS AND ANOTHER V. LINN .
This was an ation of covenant upon an indenture of
Apprenticeship, whereby the defendant, in consideration
ef a fee of 901. nntlertood to instruct the plaintiff's toe
in the hnsinees of a tobacconist. and maintain him dur-
ing a period of five year.. The defendant pleaded in
snbstance, that the indentures were cancelled, by reason
that the apprentice had quitted his service for three days,
and bad altogether refused to learn the business. The
plaintiff ret lied. that true it was, his son had absented
birostit from the defendant's service for three days, but
that at the end of that titne he had returned thereto, but
Jeendant refused to instruct him in his business. To
this replication there was a demurrer, and now the
ease came on for argument, in which a most important
qnestion between masters and apprentices was raised,
'namely, whether a master, who had received a large up-
Prentice fee from the parent of a youth, to instruct him
• • In his business, shall he at liberty to consider the Wen-
., .t7Tpre as cancelled, if in the waywardness and indiscretion
irf int* the boy shall absent himself without leave
• .:rettnt his master's service, and keep to himself the fee
' he .431 an received ?
7 ,Mr. &LAKES, in support of the demurrer, argued the
• ittfirmatiott Of this proposition.
tr. CULTIT, contra, was stopped by
• ' 'the COURT, who were most clearly of opinion that
▪ 'this action was maintainable spit:s%llle master for a
hreaoh of covenant, in not instructing the hoc in his bu-
siness, holdinethat the mleco..luct of the troy, in 'h-
ewing himself from his master's service without leave,
was not a ground for cancelling his indentures, though
- at the •u•or time, the father was liable, being a con-
trading parry, for any damage which the master sus-
: tained in cons^quence of the improper conduct of his
' min They disnnguished this case from the ordinary re-
, Won of master and nt, where the contract was dis-
soluble is consequence of any misbehaviour of the ser-
vant. This nits the case of a covenant by deed, which
wasisinding mutually on both parties, subjeetinrestele
to regal ialAity fir an, breach of covenant stipois•ed.
if the Court r err to hold that a single act of folly, ob-
stinacy, or intemperance of the youth, was a ground for
d•s.olving a contract of this nature, the greatest injus-
tice nt:glit be worked. For instance, a master might
receive 5001. as an apprentice fee with a youth, and if
• . the Foy shsented himself only a day, without leave, he
tenni/ be at Mosey to meel. the indentures and pocket
the money. The statutes concerning apprentices were
crone sufficient to prove, that it was not competent to
them* themselves to cancel engagements of this sort
li:canse those statute, vested Justices of the Peace with
a pqwer of determining' in what cases, or for what causes
the indentures shonl.l be cancelled.
• Un elkseXtounds, therefore, judgment was givenfor
the plaintiffs.

- • Aswan:sr V. GIRD*.
This was an action of debt by f srmers of the Post
Pore Duty, to reeover certain sumi of motley due to them
Roil the defendint .for duties iu respect of saddle horses
1;t him fur Site. On a special case stated, the sub-
stanhal question was, whether a person letting out horses
fur the. pleasure an I recreation of the riders, is liable to
the Post Horse Mileage Duty in respect of such horses,
though they be regularly entered in his license to let post
hotness? The yo;nt immediately brought before the
Cuazt was, whether borses so lot could he considered
a' horse; let for travelling within the meaning of the
Statutes 25 Oco. 111. c. 51.. 44 Gs°. 111. c. 98. and 1 Oeo.
1%1;e. 88. ' •
+The ease was argued by Mr. R. lime for the plain-
Oft and Mr. W. E. TAUNTON for the defendant.
•-nse Coentr-iraielearly of opinion, that horses let mere-
ly fer the purpose of the health, recreation, or pleasure of
the rider, for the day, could not be considered as horses
l't foe f weelliwh, within the meanie, of the Statutes in'
trett4.ilon, and therefore save Indgmerit for the defendant
with respect to the duties claimed for horses let by him
Di det the circumstances aboWe mentioned.
• C'Ol7ll.T OF COMMON PLEAS, MONDAY, Fes. 17.
(filters Mr. Justice Boaaouoes and a Comoro,. Jeri.)
DS AND •NOTD6R V. tVATTCRI AND
41411 it an item. front Chancery Se icy tehethet,fte Dot
. a Mi. Wien was a bsubruet. •
'44r. .*sirtint Vocalise laid the facts of the plaintiff's
e before the jute. The debt. which was the subject of
nie issue was 31001. Scinte difficulty might arise in esta-
blishing the plaintitrsclaim, from An death of par See,
a-rd the distance roc time; but the defence, he understood,
• would be, that the transaction was of an usurious nature,
••
and Usury being not a moral, but a strittly legal offence.
midi a der tree' ought to be narrowly watched. The
elAntiffs and soother person, named flotilla, since dead,
bt.i been assignees of Messrs. Latham and Parry,
Who had bad" very extensive detainee. but bad become
bankrupts. The defendants were either the assignees of
Mt. Ryles or his creditors, interested in making the
assets of his e.tate as great as possible, and diminishing
his deb s in the game degree. Mr. Ryles had, by lying
ib 'rigors, committed alt act of bankruptcy. and thus
beeome liable to she operation of the bankrupt laws. A
tense had formerly been tried whick Mr. Dyke had left
twelefended ; and although, therefore, the plaintiff had
th.rif gsiise-I a verdict, 'belly), writ not to be influenced
byittin rite consideracionnfthe present question.
• Win R,•vell Theirs swell that he to known Mr. Rel-
rher Ryles durinr his life dine; he bad seen him respect-
iag his account with Meows. !Athol and Parry, shortly
ale' these gentlea.en's btokruMer, which took place on
• lhte 17th Of Jaaesrv, • 1813. DO. a became b.skrupt in
MU,/ i the same year. •Ritness toethim by appoinsmeat
thin 25th of Jilinarys which Ives before his arrest
and bsekreptey. (ilyku)stased that he owed Latham
and Parry alialance of about 18,00101,. exclusive of a bill'
of exchange for 11110001. 'eat thefts's*, which would ire
Owl itetire'lslinee td 4t4.41001. Ile did tug say if that um
ilscleffiedistestew. • - •
Oa his eress-examination the whites's said the he was
fl e ass gore of Ryles. H'e could not sly positively that