Evening journal., 1899-03-28

------ -
qualified under the laws Of this state;
provided. that no person shall be en-.
titled to a license as pilot h-r any
branch without first having, under the
.mmediaue inspection Of his master,
or a pilot OF The first branch, conducted
a square-rigged vessel Cor at .east
brig-iigged) ,twentykimes up and TWEEN
ty times down the rlver and bay To
th.e extent named In the above eitaticre
only does the law connect THE relations
OF master and apprentice. nor otherwise
acos ia assume TO control that ie.a-
tion, wh.dh It treats as a subsist.mg
dndldlcn outside OF Itself If the Leg
islature had intended that THE power
lof the board to make lules should con-
tcl Tine relations OF master and APP
prentice, it is reasonable 10 suppose
that sudh intent w.nld have been ex-
pressed, but lt has expressly limited
the powers OF the board to make rules
for government of pilots white in THAT
servlse. Under the well-eetlled rules
cf The Interpretation OF statutes, this
eNpession 81 one ds the exclusion OF ehe
othoa- and This rule is emphasized on
thls particular statute BECAUSE the reea-
ton OF master and apprentice Is not
ignored. II does mot deal with appren-
tices by mamie and sets forth to what
extent Il can control Them. I'M THE ex-
tracts quoted above. Thus negativing
any suggestion that might arise from
implied n-wers growing out of the
contract Of the apprentice wldh the
master while the master rs acually en-
gagged in service as a piaot.
We think. therefore, that the rules
set mp by The respondents as a jirsti-
. hcation for their refusa, to accept and
ragister THE indenture of apprentice
ship of The relator were adopted with-
ont warrant OF law, and are void in 50
far as they impose conditions and Mmi-
tatlcns other than those named in Hhe
statute. and are inconsistent with the
j reh:s ard privileges OF master and ap-
prentice properly growing out Of that
ntLatl M under THE laws OF This state.
u Manliesily The ra,ator Is entitled to
p The le.ief prayed for On this acglon.
which seems 10 be his only remedy
1t Is therefore ordered that a whit ol
z peremptory mandamus issue in pur.
p suance Of this prayer OF the relat.r."
, This decision is quite a lnocl1-ouf
d fer The Board df Pilot Commissioners
II nhis decisl.n i'm favor Of young I'D
= wards carries with Il the reinstate
o ment Of Bailey, Weft. another appren
p tics who suffenod the same disability
, ALLOWED TO AMEND.
= Judge Penn'ewill rendered decision
J. N n point involved I'm the case OF DAN
n iel b. Hamilton VS.. Hiram Grand Gl5dg
8 of Co,ored Masons. 1t was ahat the re
II brn Of the writ of mandamus was NO
10 sufficient and THAT the respondent b
~ Allowed to amend
a ANDERSON CASE NOW ON.
s after some troub,e a special jury wa.
IL drawn to try the case of George V. Am
g derson VS.. THE Mayor and Council o
Wilmington. who sues for $4,000 dam
ID ages for injuries received by runnln.
'- into a wire stretched across Thir
"a street. near Parish, on May y, 1895
j. Colonel Njelds represented him ans
N City Solicitor Conrad and Assistan
u City Solicitor Cahocn the city.
p Anderson was placed on the stan
Pr ard sworn. He said he was riding hi
10 whee. at ahe time, and THAT there wa
u no flag or other signal to warn hir
l- that the wire was there. 1t wa
No stretched acrosz the etreet becaus
Y State Detective Mcvey. who lived cl-s
Ss by, was sick. Mr.. Anderson describe
e the injnEes he sustained, and his oS
animation concluded just as uhe tim
'- fer taking a reCess arrived.
o. General leave to amend was granite
" In the case of Weldon vs.. the p. w.
'' Z. Railroad Company to ever tn
:" charge of extreme negligence.
10 In the case Of Baur vs.. ClIsh judi
lu ment was confessed in favor Of Ohe d
~ fendant for $27
'H A rule OF lnquisItion was granted
10 the case af David II. Wells VS.. Gearg
" w. West.
- Judgment for want Of plea W;
~. granted in the case OF the lnterN'
30 Manufacturing Company VS.. Pierce
9' DlCleI0N IN RANKRUp