Mayor's Court, Monday, No...
The Times, 1824-11-23T00:00:00

Mtr. lOLLAr.D, in moving that common bail be filed in dissoln- tion of the attachment in this case, stated, that it was an action brought by Mfr. JIodson against the defendants, lately or now styling theminelves the Government of Peru. It would be recollected, that tome time ago an affidavit had been put into coart from hlr. ilodson, stating, that the above-named defendants had incurred a deht with ,him to the amount of`3,0001., far the payment %fvwhich he corsia- dered them' responsible as the Government of Peru. The learned counsel here pyoposed to read the affidavit, when. Mr. BRARrAnD, who was for the other side, said, that he was Itady to arrue in the event of the production of any particular affi. davit in denial of the debt, but he considered thtat the tormeraiffidavit haddalreadybeen disposed of by being withdrawn. IAJr. BOL.LAVIv said, his object was to put down the nonsense that was 'iri ' intto thie esrs of the public, upon the rubject of the re- 'onp2e-s%of the G]overnmient of Petu for debt to an individual, ie itlS v stctly a ware that the thing was got up to tell upon the 8tock ttedarge. The use be intended to mfake of the affidavitwas, to show tinit the money Mr. Hodison lately claimed from Messrs. Jose d'Ariva Aguetro, Jose de Torres Tagle, and Jose de San hartinz as the GRovernment of Peru, aad which was attaclhed in the ofessrs. Baring, le.rs. Kinder, and Messrs. Fly and Chapmlan, wJas now claimed from Jose Sar. Alartin and the others, as iatdividuals and not as a Government. The amount soughtwras for ttanufsctured goods. Ar. BAnNAnD objected to the use of the affidavit, upon the Moaund that the Ccurt had already ruled that it was insufficient for aathoijzing an attachment of lthe propetty. lr. BOI LAtD conltended that he wvas at liberty to wake use of Pliat the plaintiff had swsrn against him. The RECOnDER.certainly thought Mr. Bolland might suse wbat- had been sworn to by Mlr. khodson on the former occasioP. .1lr. Bo LLAXD then read the affldavit of the plaintiWf, in whicht he 5;ore to the debt, as diue from the Governent of Peru. He then submitted to the Court that no such Government could be recognized, the highlest authority having stated to that effect;- that the defen- dints could not be sued as a gQvernmncnt; and, finally, that the affi- tvit, or rather that which pretended tobe an afidavit, wvas, in fact, LO affi~davit at sf.. The RECORDEn asked whrtlbcr the affidavit had not been regu. lay. s3woLLArn repIied thatit had been sworn h er ef6re one Of the clerks in the Alayor's Court, and ofcours vtrW an instru- trat1t upon which, if i contained a false statement, an indictment for ?teury could be founded. iheR.EeORDEB-.Who is this clerk ?-to what; attorney of the Csa0t Is he clerk ?_for I shall take care thdat practices of this kind tull not be tolerated. H4shere infomed that it had been a pactice of the M3ayor'a Coart Of iice for many years to permit the clerks to swear Ptewns. Businessa was greatly facilitated by gsuch mea;ns. The RECORDIP. dcsifed that befl should never again hleae of this mode of w-searing affidavits. If he-did, he should cerltanly adopt summary means of preventing the pvactice. One of the attornies egid it hadbecn the practice ever since he be. Ionged to the office, and that was 25 years. Tlre RECORDER said, he Loped his observation on the subject wvould be talcen as a sufficient netice, and that there would be no re- petition Df the practice. His ljotDsuiP then granted the mnotion to Mr. Bolland, by which the sttachment beconmes whollv null and void. He did this upon the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit, stating, at the same timne, that if a proper affidavit had leen tiled, lie should have given his opinion of the two otlher objections, but that was now quite unnecessary. GORtDON V. WllTTTF. This was a case of considerable interest, inasmuch as it relates to the law of master and apprentice, and was wholly nev to the Court. The defendant is a respectable perfumer in East Cheap, and the plaintifr is hiis apppentice, and sought to have his indentures canecl.. led. his master not havins. performed his contract in procuring the enrolment s f his (plaintiffr,) name within the first year of' his ap. prentices8ip. In answer to this, the defendant put in a plea to the efflect, that he had donehir duty as a master, and that his apprentice should not be discharged ; that he had attended for the purpose of having his apprentice enrolled; and that the Chamberlain of thecity of fLondon, upon asking the apprentice whether he liked his r,oaster in buisiness, and whether he was willing to serve hinm for the remain- der of the time specifiedl in the inldenture, received a negative in an- swver, and reused to perform the act of enrolment. fr. BOLLAND, Sbr the apprentice, stated that thils was a most. extraordinary plea. The master wvas bounrd to enrol his apprentice -who wzas to obtan certain privilege therefrom ; and if the enrol. ment were prevented, there was another practice which would have as rtrong an effect, and in fact answer all the purposes of enrolment -that of recording the indenture. The learned counsel then argued upon a dermnrrer to the plea, and contended that thc indentaireshousld be cancelled, as themastter had not performed his contract. lr. BARnARD theught therc was suffieient on the face of the plea to show thtat the apprentice ouglht not to be discharged, as he hadl taken advantage of his own wrong. The refusal to be enrolled hal been malde by him, and then hec preferre(d his complaint. The Chsmberlain's ground for refusing tl9 perform the act of enrolment undoubtedlv proceeded front the conduct of the apprentiee, who was unreasonable enough to charge his nmastcr witlh the consequence of his own acknowledged acl. It wfas to be hoped that the Court would not sanctiOn such conduct on the nart of an apprentice. Mltr. BOLLAN,D contended, thtat even if an apprentice said he would not be enrolled, it Avas the duty of the master to have the act performed, or to get the Chamberlain to record the indenture, for it was, never meant by the law that a boy shiould have his election in such a case. The master was bound by an oath to protect Iiis appren. tice, and in this instance the protection ha(l been neglectel. The REconarEt said this was a newv case, and he should take time to consider before he shovild decide upon it. The Chamber- lain of L,ondon had refuised to enrol-the pla-itiff, but whethler he was warranted in refusing wass a matter of question. It did not appear that the master woult have acted ant he ought to have done if he had apotied to have the indenture recorded after the refusal to etirol had bcen given. A writ of inud7a,nus might have been moved for to compel the Chamnberlain to enrol the apprentice. The RECOttngtt then said he should deliver his jtdagment the next court dlay. 7kfAVIIRIR.tltlTTPIII NI-- V-- THFR COLO31BIAN GOVERNMENT.-HOTSOIN V. JOSE DE SAY MALTIN AND OTSIF1IR.