The Alexandria herald. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1811-1826, 1823-03-05
LAW CASE.
1Ve7v- York Courf Of Sessions e6. Is.
THE PEOPLE u.s. MRTcALFE.

| THE PEOPLE Us. METcALFE.
| As this case has excited considerable
interest among masters and apprenti-
ces, and involves principle in which the
! rights Of both Of those classes are deep
ly concerned, il merits more full and
correct report than has yet been pub
| lished.
In 1918, Metcalfe was bound by his
mother, before the police magistrate,
to Banks, as an apprentice to learn the
trade OF cabinet maker, TO serve until
the age oftweniy one years; and in the
indentures his age was stated to be six
teen years. although in fac, he was
eIghteeDs Having served his master
faithfully until he was twenty-five years
and Upwards, Metcalfe gave notice to
M. master OF his age, and demanded his
Inden,ures and his freedom. The mas.
| ter refused, and Metcalfe quit his ser
VICE, assigning his age as the cause
she master applied to the police Office.
and Metcaife was summoned to answer
the charge of running away from his
master. Here Metcal.e in defence prov
cd MS age TO be past twenty>two YEAR,;
and also proved that the mother and the
master had combined TO inser, the age 2
years back for the purpose OF binding the
boy beyond his minority for the masters
interest," the master having made obje,.
tion to his advanced age On these facts,
nr. Hedden' the police justice, dismiss
cd the masters application. From this
oecision the master appealed to the .es
Sions' ana Oh the last day of term The
case was tried
Emmet and SeIden, for The prosecu-
ton; and Fay for defendant.
was contended for by the master.
mat by the 9th section of the statue coli,
e'hin8 apprentices, "!he age of the an
Prentice shall tie fake,t 10 be his trur no.
7uifhouf any further troof thereof. .
ia! me apprentice and his mother hav-
ing si8nedthe indeBtures, * in them having
hNeu the age, they were both precluded
oy 'ne'r deea, and by the tazo, from set
uns up Inherent age against the validity
OF the IndeDture. That the master had
JUST taught the boy his trade, and now as |
MS services began to be valuable, he
heo rom his employment under q pre-
fence Contrary TO the fact Admitted by his
deed. They objected TO any eoidenee
Whatever. Mr.. Fay, in reply, said, the
s'a'u'e u construed as contendeo for by |
the prosecution, might, by a fraudulent I
cohhiVance between a parent and mas
'er' olnd person till he was thirty years
OF age. That The meaning OF this statute
must, be not that the indenture shall be |
conclusive evidence of The age ap ainst
The minor, but only TRINA facie evidence
10 satisfy The Justice at The time of exc.
cuung the In6entures, and that 10 Save
MN the trouble offinding further proof
land that this part of the statute wasap.
pnCaoie only 10 poor apprentices, who,
""hou' parents, were bound by the ma
gistraie' and not applicable to the case
III question
L ne recorder, on consulting his asso
ciates on The bench, decided that evidence
of,he trueoge might be admitted-&,hat
upon contrary principle, AN American
c''izen might be frauIuieDtly bound, s. Tie
spectacle might occur Of anappreniiee of
50 years. receiving the PUNISHMENT OF
whipplng,from the hands Of ms u,astcr,for
dIsobedience of orders. The legislature
nave liked the meaning as 10 what sort of
evidence, the indenture shall be, of the
age ser forth in IL, as will appear by re-
terence TO the statute, for the relief of in.
Solvent debtors. In that case, the statute
declares, that the discharge shall be con.
elusive evidence of the facts therein con.
ioIned. In the statue concerning an.
prentces---ihe word sfconcIusive" IS lei,
'ut, which would not have been the
case, 1t the legislature, should be con-
cuisine evidence of the fact.
The godmother of defendant, and the
defendant himself, we're then offered a.
witnesses 10 prove the defendants age.
Jr. Emmet objected to these being
sworn, on the ground that the roothe
was better evidence, and might be pro,
duced-and that the defendant, aside
from MS interest, TO misrepresenl h.
age-couid not be supposed to know his
age, except from hearSay.
Mr. Fay IN reply. Asserted that the pro-
ceedings of the defence, was in opposition
to the mothers act, and to prove tbarI
she had ffaudulently misrepresenled the !
defendants age, and had conspired with
the master, TO cheat the defendant of his
freedom That the god mother who
remembered the birth of the child, who
stood for him at his christening, who had
the certificate of his parish register, was |
IN opposition to the mother, the best evi.
deDce that could be produced. That
the defend ant ,uae The ,,o-,t 4 -, -