Police.
The Times, 1824-09-15T00:00:00

MANSYoN.tot1ssE..-.Yesterday, . r. R. Thiorn/ os02, a s?ipwowner and tnerchant, residing at Old Swan-stairs, appeared before thc LORD MAVOR. up3n an infarmiation prete:cLd uinder a recent act of Parliament, chlarging hIim with havine refUsed to pav a seatna:t whom he hadl employed, the tsr-es which iiad become due. The case involved a qtcstioin of rather a novel description, and a great many persons engaged irn maritimiie business attended to hear the (decision. Mr. RoBINSOS conducted the case for the eismtpdainant, Edl- ward Burns, who swore, that on the 24th of JulIy last, baving previously been anplied to by Captain AMoffat, he weCtt to the count- ing.house of the defendant, who enagecd him to go as cook on board the Men-ir, a voyage to Batavi.t. Captain Iofflat spoke of tle defend. ant as owner, and the latter actedl as such, Ile told witness that he would give binsthe same pay as the other men, which wa- twentvsix gilders, or 21. 4s. per month. \itnees a erced and went on board, The defen)dant ecame on board before they sailed, and paid him three sovereitns ins advanice. She t,ok on boaru a esrgo of chain cables attd anchors, and railed for Batavia. WNh'en they gotout,she heisted Dutch colours to the first shipthey met.. Witness lhad not seen tier hoistDrDtch coloiirs before. Witness felt hiimself verv uncomfortable on board as rll the crew except himself were Dutcfianen; and when they got to Batavia. he requested that he might be discharged,which was done with the consenttof Alis% Thornton, the sister of the defendant. Shc told hiim that her brother, who was the owner of thle vessel, woul(i pay him his wages. She gave hhn a Paper, witicli he understood was a certificate of his discharge. lecoutd not re-d. Captain Thatchler, of the Hetssy, who was present, to:k it from ihin, and had necr since given it back to him. He was immediately engaged by Capedir Thatcher, and returcdl home with himn. He wi's obliged to take the latter before a magistrate in order to obtain arrears of wages tron ini. When wiusess presentea himself on hIis retitrn at AIr. Thorn. ton's counting.house, the latter, after he had atteiided several times, positively re,.sed to pay itim, and told him that hc might go to hell and seek redrc 3s. This was the cise for the conmelaihant; and as the ship has not returned to England, a question arose whether the provi. the sions of act were arplicable, except in ciscs where the voyage has been complet-.l and the ship is r :ually in port. The city law authiorities were consilted, and the) were of opinion that the case did come within the meaning of the act. Mlr. Thorntoti, in his defence, denied thiat lic was liable, as he was eet the owner, and had never acted otherwise than as the agent of the shin. He denied also that the c"se ctmc within the jurisdiction of his uordship, as the act only related to Biitish vessels, and the ship in question was a foreign ship. He .sserted that the sailor was perjured when he state(i him to have actedl as owner. Ile never slid any such thing. Cantain Moffat hired the seaman,and paid him the three sovereigns. Tnat the sailor hail perjured itimself vasc vident, for he must liave known that the shiip was tbreign,fbr,by thte last Re- gistration Act, the Captain aitid two-thirds of the crew of every Bri- tish ship must be British. Captainl Moffat was called, but his testimony was objected to by hIr. Robinson,on the groundl that he was an intertsted witness and the L911D MAYOR helsi hiis obiection to be goc d. AMr. Thornton.-" Captain idloffat, now tell his Lordship whe. ther you slid not pay this man the three sovereigns Captain Mloffat shook tis head, antd replied that he did not re. collect such athisng. The LORD MYOrtR said, when the case came flrst before him.the ground of defene- was, that the wvages were rcfased because tie seaman hatl no certiflcate of his discharge. It was no- inow attempt. ed to he sleniefl thttt his services had een received, and to avoid paying him for them it was alleged that tbe c-se did not come within the act. Now, lookingat the equity of the cse, he would ask whether this was an hottest defence ? *llr. Tlornton.-No, it is not; bitt I am not the owner of the shlip, asi never was. r htave nothing to de with it. Thit sailor had isot behtaved well; lut if your I.ordship gives it as your opi. nton that lie ougiht to bc paid, C]aptalin Mtoffist will pay himb. M2r. Ronteesow, the soiicitoc, F'lid, that the sailor had gene to great coats its obtaintig justice, anid htc wouid not consent to accept the debt-s wilthout she costs. Mr. Thornton warmly denied that lie was liable to costs ; ncitl-er was he liable at all, for he never hatl the ship in hiis charge. No agent was liable for the wares of scamen. Thte LORD MAYOR.-air, I believe that in every point of view, in law as well as in Juistice, you are boundl to pay this poor man. He swears (and he is uncontradicted by atty evidence) that you were represented to hibm aa the owner, anid that yost exercised tie actS of asi owner with respect to himn. Ttis is an act for the relief of illi- terate seatnen, which every respectable merchanst must wish to see brought into tc iimost perfect operation ; anti how is a sailor to know who is the ownser, stislecs yost, whio hiave been pointed out to him bv his Capztin, and have so acted, arc to be considered as sucnt ? Here, a poor seaman on his return front his voyage, on applying Ibr his nioncy to the pesson wvlo engaged iun, iS dris ven from nillar to poht and uttless he can obtaitn relief ustler this act, it is a noecnititv for all useful purposes. As to his having lichaved iil, he is niot to be sie. prives of his wages upon a mere allegation of that kind; but if it were true, it is singular that Captain Thatcher shoulst be so prom-npt its obtaining his services. His Lordship then adjudged Afr. Thorn- toIl to pay the atnouint of wages. Mlr. RolItwsoN, in addition to the amount of wages, submcitted that Mr. Thornton was beuand to pay the full costs. The Solicitor then tendiered a bill of costs. TheChief Clerk said, it was unusasal to allow an attorney costs be. fore a magistrate, or any thing bcyontd the ordinary fees of itie office. The right ot' the complainatst's solicitor, utnder thesc circun;. stat8es, to his costs, was considered to be a questioti of great itiiport- ance, an(d it was referrel to tihe citv law authoritics to say wbtether thev could be included in bite order. 51T. Thorntotn vehiemently protested against tltcscpr(aceditigs, atid said lie should appeal to the Ctourt of Admiralty. The boil.D AlMzyog expressed his detertiisation to issue hiis war. raint to compel the pavmre:t of tbe wsages. MIr. Thornton repeated, that he was not the owner of the sliip; and 8aid, when thc L,tinD MIAYOR inquireti who was the ovwner of the ship, that it belonged to Mr. West, of Antwerp. The LoRtn MAYOR asked how the pbor man was to have known this and how he was to getat sach an owner ? Mr. RoBINsoNr declared, that he pusrsued this case front feeling as well as from professional duty, and that hio would sec justice done to the poor iman ; lie would pursiae it tO the Higlh Count of' Admir. alty, aml compel Alr. Tlornton to pay. Air. Thorntont.-Iflie(thte sailor) succeeds, I will give 1itll all mIy ships. Preparations hiaving beene made for issuing the warratit, the parties Mow^S5nIEET.-Yesterday Mr. Pitt, the Adelphi assction.cr, wh o bas so often appearedfir.tcourts of justicc anti poliec-offices as hisown advocate, attendcel upon a suasmons to answer to an infor. mation under the MIetropolis-Paving Act, for having refused, uponi proper nqtice beincg givcn,.to rernove a certain railing erected in front of his housc thesAme beiug~an.obstricdtln to the free passage of, ansi inconvenient ands incom6rpedious to, his Miljesty's sssblects. 5Mr. AT.r,Ey appeared- ineSUcbalf'Pf the information, and Mlr. Pitt defended his ofs causc. ' . Dif. Stutelg, thc sFurveyor totItC comtmissioucrs. for the parish of St. Martin, appointed under the act of Parliament, was sworm, and deposed that Mr. Pitt was the occupier of a hou,se in Adam-street Ad elphi, and that house until lately lhad, as other houses in the street have, fl.,t railing covering the area, over which foot-pas. sengers walked, as they had a riglht to do. Within the last two months Alr. Pitt Itad chosen to erect an upright railing surrounding the fiat one, and of course shutting out the passage hitherto enjoyee over the area. Notice to remove thiis obstruction had been regularly served ipon Mr. Pitt, but ie -had neglected to conpiv with it. Sir. Pitt, who hads talken the obliection rn limiu4e, but was told to wait until Alr. Stutely had giaen his evidence, now contended, that the latter gentleman was not coinpe-ent to ex-hibit the present irfor- mation, he not being legally appointed under the statute; or if he were, that he han vitiated that appointment by acting in violation of the law under which he was appointed. One section of the statute enacted that no surveyors appointed under it should be a mason, or a dealer in stone,c, or engaged in any masonry work, or have any in- terest in any work of tliht description in the parish for wlhich he was surveyor undler the commissioners. Now he would ask Mr. Stutely, whether he had not, within the last tvo years, performed maslon's work for Mr. W1'inchester, of Buckingham-street, one of the com- missioners of' pavement, and whether he had not delivered a bill, charging 91. and upwards for that very work? Alr. Stutelv objected to answer this queYtion. AIlr. Pitt.- Bui you must answer it, Sir. .Mr. ',tutely said he shouid still object to answer the question. and would throw hiinself upon the protection of the Mlagistrate. The Mlagistrate said, that if' AlMr. Stttely had offended against the statite in rhe way insinuated by Afr. Pitt, he was liable to heavy penalties, andan information might be exhibited against him; and that being the case. he couldi not be called upon to answer the ques- tion, upon this plain ane, universally acknowledged principle.t.sat no ntar was compelled to say any thing that might tend to criminate himself. The objection and question were over-rtled. .Mr. Pftt's next ground of defence was, that the erection com. plained of. so far from being an obstruction or inconvenience, was the very reverse; and inl support of the position, he called two wit_ nesces, who swore, that in their opinion, the erection of the upright r-ailing was a conveniience to the public. Passengers had often com plained of the flat railings as being dangerous. The case occupied more than two hours in the hearing, during whiich Sr. Pitt derended his ground inch by inch; and, in spite of the repeated hinit of the MIagistrate that other parties were waiting to be heard in their turns, he continued to argue and vehemently contend that be was right, until, at length, the Magistrate was oblig- ed to stop turther discussion, by deciding the question against Alr. Pitt, who was conv icted in the penalty of 40s. The Magistrate, in awarding the conviction, observed, that by the Act of Parliament it was sufficient that the erection complained oi' should be ", in th:e jutdgmient of the surveyor" an obstruction or inconvenience to toit- public; andl this being sworn to be the case in the piesent instance, he could not do otherwvis than convict. There was an appeal to tile sessions. ofv hichi Mr. Pitt could avail himself. A r. Pitt said he should certainly appeal, and gave notice accord. iIATTnNo-GAna,e-..WiZliat,l Rote'rts, a mnilk-earrier, in the set visc ot illessrs. Stansfield and Howell, dairy-mnen, was charged with having refused to iseribrin the contract entered into by innt, at the period of his enga-ninent, and with maliciously exciting others to q uit the service. Mr. HARs?sER, whc attended or. behalf of the cempl;irnant, statedI the nature of thc oflknce. AMe-srs. Stansfield and Howell, samE tile agto entbarked upwards of 10,0001. in a concern known by the nalne of the "Alderney Dairy," the towni-establishment being at Charles. street, Northampton-square. They engaged twenty milk-carriets for so many distinct walks, at a salary per week ; and in all such en- gagements titere was a specific understanding, that the employers could not discharge any servant without one week's notice, reither couhl the servant quit their enmploy without a similar intimation. Mr. flarnter referred the magistrate (Alr. Scrgesnt SELLoN) to the 4Lth George I V. cap. 34-an act expressly framed to ensure the faith. fiu. performance of all such contracts, and ernpowering tine magis- trate, in event of a non-performance being satIsfactorirv proved, ta conmnit the offender to the House of Correction for any'term not ex- ceeding three calendar months. On this statute, Mlessrs. Stansfield a nd Hovwell now came forward to seek for the redress of wrongs, not merely personal, but publie, inasmuch as that a great incon. venience must arise fronm the combination of those men, w}ho were, in point of' fact, servants to the public. [iIr. Robernj,owe, late clerk to .Mfessrs. Stansfield and Howell. was present at the engagement of the defendant (Roberts), anti proved that there was an understanding betwixt the emnployer and thc employed, that the contract could not be disannulLed without a tek's previous notice. Joseph Fluckext. clerk to Alessrs. Stansfield and Howell. was pre- sent wheti de!endant camc for his wages, on Saturday night: heardt defendant say-- I suppose you dloa't want mc any more'" to which l.M r owell rcplied, * *crtainly, wve shali expectyvou to come to vuer work next wees g we don't give you warning, dlo you give us warn- ing ?" The defendastt rejoined, ''- I would rather gire a week's wages than cotue any more." He was then asked would he give warning ? and lic said that lie would not. 51le. Sergeant SELLON.-LeC iue understand clearlv whetl,er there sas 5n v stipulation in the engageneut regarding a forfeiture of wages-t.ha is material. AMr. Iowe (the former witness).-There was nothing said of for- fci!urc. the contract was specifically a week's notice. Robert Shtearman. one of defendant's fellow-servants was ther called to prove that Roberts endeavaured to excite the heir men to strike. A few days ago, defendant spokc to witness. and said there was to be a sneeting of the milk-carriers, ant asked him (witness) to he in the mness. Witness said fie could not tell. Defendant said, ' I f yon strike, I know a person that will fiud us in pails, yokes,, anid milk." Mr. HARMER said, that if any further evidence were necessary, he was prepared to produce it; but he conceived that tite evidence of shearman was alone sufficient to establish the offence. bInStansfield observed. that he had good autherityfor sai that a most malicious attempt had been made bysome persons toenticethe men fronm their duty, and he WaU credibly informed that they were all to strike tAiis week; and it could even be proved that Reberts had to,l siiany of the customers in his walk that lie would not sell the miilk any longer. it was so very bad a quality. There could be nothing more calculated to ruin hiin and Ihis partner in their snetultion than this-a speculation iri which they had already emnbar'ked more than 14,0001-. and which, as a rpublic conlcern, conducted, he would say, on the itairest terms, wvas enltitled to The support of ever,y boniest rnan. The detendant endeavoured to account for his qui;ting the service by chiarging \Iis employers with not having performed soale promiEe regarding their findlag hin in a lodging. Mr. Scrgeant SELe.ON.-Thiat is neither an excuse nor an (s- plaratiots for vour teaving your emplovers thus suddenly; if you were dissatisfied. a week would not haxe been any very great time for them to procure another person in yourplace; but it is quite dear to mc, that there lias been somne person at work behind the curtain, who is trying to undermine Alessrs. Stansfield and Hiowell, whom it would be moast desirable to disclose. By your conduct vout have l)aced yourself within the operation of the act, and nublic justice demands somse aatotement for your offence Had the complaint been brought tiurward it another shape, the punishsnent nmust necessarily nave been more severe; however, I trust that the example ;will not be lost upon others, who perhaps are now harbouring the mistaklen notion that the property and interests of spirited individvaLz are laced at the mercy of their caprieious whims. The prisoner was then committed to the House of Correctioi for one inonth, being a mitigated term of innprisonnment. POLIIP.