The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1895-06-19

EDITOR OF THE REPUBI loan -SIR:-I clip
from your Issue of the 11th inst. the fol.
lowing notice OF suit before Squire
Daley. wherein Patrick Flood was the
plaintiif and myself the defendant. and
wherein the squire gave judgment against
me Tor s52 and costs, which, In my opin-
lon. said judgment was bad and not ao.
cordlnR to the evidence AMI from which |
have given security and taken an appeal
to the Superior Court, which / expect to
be reversed by the honorable court. who
knows more about equity than this newly
appointed grocer, who seems to be con.
verting the laws OF our State TO suit his
own imaRlnations:
FLOOD GETS VERDICT.
Magistrate Daley rendered decision
this morning In tho case OF Flood va. Cor.
rlgan. The facts OF the case arc brloiiy
as follows: Patrick Flood appIentloed his
son to james Corrlgan to leaIn the trade
oil blacksmith.
''fie was to receive So week for the first
year and AN additional 81 u week for each
succeeding year By agreement Corrlgan
retained 952 in the first year from his
wages to be given young Flood when he
had learned his trade
During his second year the blacksmith
aud the boy disagreed and the latter was
discharged. He asked for i59 but Corrl.
gan refused to give 1t to him. Suit was
brought for the recovery of the mount.
and Magistrate Daley this morning gave
verdict Tor tho full amount"
Here is my version of the case, which l
can prove by reliable witnessed: / made
verbal bargain with the boy to stay with
me four years to learn the blackg mith
trade giving him two dollars a week the
llrst year, four dollars the second year,
i've dollars the third year. si1 dollars the
fourth year, and tfty,two dollars II he
served out his time faithfully ln learning
his trade and obeying my commands. He
worked for me three weeks and his father
came and asked me what bargain had
made with him and Itold him as above,
and no said he was satisfied. He served
the first year aud found him very little
improved In his trade. He worked two
months on the second year ard l paid
bin four dollars per week. A boy came
INTO the shop with cart to get bolt put
In 1t and told him to put II in quickly as
Lis employer might discharge him If he
did not return in time.
He Flood. took his apron of and threw
1t down and walked out of the shop aud
said he would never coma back Hls
father came back and begged me To take
him back. when l replied that when he
once left hts-assfulness was done. But
the father said his mother and brother
had given him good talking to and he
wunld do right under these psrsuaslons.
! took him back. and Instead of doing
better he did worse, and actually drove
the uals In the horses shoes go as to go
Into The quick and lame tho horses. and
Nhen l tolu nm OF II, he left again. Now
Mr. Editor, what kind OF an apprentice is
that after mo spending about l5 months
ol my time in teaching him his trade. he
to mnllciously try to ruin my trade by
driving nails into the horses feet 50 my
customers would not come back, which l
Can prove.
lu The face OF such evidence what do
you think OF Squire Daley's judgment. /
am told he does this thing nearly in every
case lie reminds me OF the notorious
Bill Slivers who gave judgment against
Now Jersey farmer Tor slxty-four dollars
In fnyor OF his servant girl. She came
back to Silver5 for nearly one year he
telling her he had not paid 1t whom he rad
tho muuey III his pocket. AT last he told
her the farmer ran away. and the girl be -
gan 10 cry and Silvers told her to come
and slgn his docket ard he would give
her llv1 doIiats out of his own pocket and
size did It, and Silvers pocketed tifty-nine
dollars aud to interest and costs at tie
expense OF this Door hirllng servant girl.
Now, sir, II thHt Ia law in Delaware q on't
you thlnt IL would bo better for the laws
10 lie revised ut once and savo this Squire
from making such bunders In order to
make fees FOR his own pocket
JAMES CORRiGAS.