The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-02-05
LnaAL xNTnLLIaHNcn.
Court Of Quarter sessions--JudRc PaxsOn.
APPRENTICE LAW.


ing given by his Honor Judge Paxson:-
Commonwealth VS.. Jiuker. The defendant James
irwin Lnker, Is an indentured apprentice TO the
business OF carving In bone and hard wood. Tho
mdenture bears date the 18th day OF November 1851,
and the term OF service will expire the Sth day of
November, A. d. 1870. The defendant was brought
into Court upon complaint Of his employers, who
allege that ne absconded from their service on the
Upon the hearing, the counsel f1r the apprentice
asked the Court to discharge the latter for the fol-
I. That the indenture was signed by one only OF
the masters Of the said apprentice, Messrs Harvey
Ford, the firm name being used
2. That the said firm had refused TO pay the Aid
apprentice the weekly wages mentioned in the said
the WORK actually performed 6y him. at SsS opr lTr
mally nxed by parole agreement between the ap-
prentice and his employers; and
3. That the said apprentice had not received the
amount OF schooling TO which he was entitled under
the indenture
The case was very fully heard, and argued with
much ability and force by the counsel for the respec-
tive parties The evidence left no doubt as to the
fact OF the absconding OF the apprentice Indeed it
was not denied at the hearing, but 1t attempted
to- Justify it for the reasons above stated.
IL is clear that this apprentice left the service OF
his employers mainly because OF the disagreement
referred to in regard to his wages They failed to
duties, and upon that failure the defendant alb
sconded. .....4
There can be no doubt that If the indenture is
void, either from Its improper execution any other
cause, the defendant cannot be punished for alb
scondng. 1t would have no binding effect upon
either party and IL the execution OF it by one mem
ber OF the firm, in the firm name, does not bind
them the defendant is not bound Covenants TO be
worth anything must bind both parties. But think
the firm OF Harvey Ford are bound by this inden-
ture. True, it was signed in the firm name by one
only OF its MEMBERS but 1t was done in the prosecu
ton OF the business of the firm, and has been re-
peatedly recognized and confirmed by all the men,
bers Of the firm They have acted upon 1t up to the
them.
A deed may be executed by one partner in the
firm name, and will bind all the partners II done
in their presence or with their consent, "Story on
Partnership sec. 120, or afterwards confirmed or
ratified by the partners, whether it be verbal or in
In any event, the contract binding as to tle
member OF the firm who signed it, 1t is g0oo against
him, and he is certainly liable to the apprentice for
the proper performance OF the covenants on the
part Of the master In the said indenture contained
The other points raised by the defendants cOun-
sci do not propose to decide. / am bound to say
upon this proceeding whether the indenture is a
valid instrument or not but after careful reflection,
do not think that any question touching the proper
performance of the covenants in sad indenture on
the part OF Messrs. Harvey 4 Ford egitimately
arises upon this record The defendant does not
come into court in a proper way to ask us to dis
charge him from service cancel the indenture.
abscondng whenever he may fancy he is i-treated,
or that his master has not complied with his part of
the contract.
This is not the proper way TO seek redress settle
differences. The Act of Assembly OF 10Th OF Sep
ember ITO, Sec 2. points out the remedy for both
master and apprentice in case the the other
| is in default BY compliance with that act the
complaint OF either can be heard by the Court OF
Quarter Sessions and if the has been guilty
| OF oppression cruelty towards his apprentice, or
has violated his covenant, the Court has the power
to discharge the apprentice from his indenture. On
the other Dand, il the apprentice is in default, and
refuses to properly perform his duties the Court is
| empowered to punish him by Imprisonment at hard
labor, II necessary.
| With remedy SO simple and easy open to him, we
will not countenance this apprentice in insubordna-
ton. We will not permit him to decide the ques-
| tions at issue between his employers and himself.
AS the stands at present, / cannot grant the
defendant the relief he asks for. He must submit to
the authority Of his employers. He may then, IL he
thinks himself aggrieved, bring his complaint before
| the court In proper manner.
All decide now is that the defendant must re-
turn TO his service. If, after having done so, his
| employers refuse TO pay him the weekly wages
stipulated for in the indenture, or fail to give him
the schooling TO which he is entitled, to properly
perform any other covenant which they are bound
10 perform let him resort to the law for redress IL
is strong enough secure him in all his legal rights
But he need first to be taught the sautary les son
that it is not for him to sit in Judgment upon his
case, and vindcate his supposed right by an unlawful
act. The law will not permit this in any case. 1t
would be most perniciOus and subyersive OF proper
authority the part OF masters If apprentices were
| permitted to decide their supposed grievances in
| this summary manner. And it would be most un-
| fortunate for the apprentices themselves Ii they
would make useful men and law-abiding citizens,
they must begin by exhibiting their respect for law
and order in the days OF their youth II not cutl-
waited then, they will never learn the lesson later in
life All decide now is that this apprentice must
go back to his employers. He has the option be-
| tween that and imprisonment.
THE LOTTERY CASES.
In the case OF the parties charged with dealing in
lottery policies, the demurrers filed yesterday to the
indictments before the Court this morning for
argument Counsel for the defendants moved for a
postponement of the matter until Monday in order
to give them an opportunity to examine the legal
questions involved In the demurrers and to render
| themselves able to discuss them integently. The
District Attorney opposed the postponement on the
ground that the demuTers were general and did not
give notice to the Commonwealth of the reasons,
and therefore any time allowed would give the de-
PENDANTS an undue advantage over the Common
wealth. The Judge said he saw no legal ground for
the delay, and therefore said the argument would
have to be proceeded with at once
Mr. Cassidy, representing the defendants, asked
Mr. Gibbons II the indictments were found upon the
return OF the magistrate, and not a special Official
act OF his; and Mr.. Gibbons answered that such was
the case Mr. Cassidy then said he moved to quash
the indictment upon this ground, independently OF
the demurrer, because the alderman returned that
the defendants were bound over TO answer for SELL
ing particular lottery policies, and the Grand Jury
indicted them for selling and exposing to sale lottery
policies and also founding and maintaining lotteries,
which were not at all mentioned In the return.
Thus the Grand Jury had indicted them for separate
and distinct ofenses from those for which they were
bound over by the magistrate, which action was
manifesty contrary to law. This alone he deemed
sufficient to destroy the indictments
AS TO the demurrers, he read the section OF the
penal code under which these proceedings were
pretended to have been taken, and which specifically
described the kinds OF lotteries that constituted
ofenses as nuisances The Ofenses charged in these
cases not those named by the statute and were
not indicted as nuisances There were no words in
the statute which made the acts OF the defendants
character of the obnoxious lottery tickets was to then
unknown but 1t was in their power to know
it, for Mr. Wood, the District Attorneys special de
tectiye, had worked up these cases. had the tickets
in his possession was examined by the Grand Jury
and could easily enough have produced them for In
spection In the face OF snch looseness and inaccu
racy on the part of the Grand Jury in framing in
dictments contrary TO the common law and the spe
cial requirements OF the statute, he could not set
how the Court could sustain such indictments.
In answer to the motion to quash, Mr. DWigh
that settled