RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2010, 14 October 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before James Fulton, Esq., R.M.) John Hardy, charged with drunkenness, was dismissed with a caution. PETTY OFFENCES. H. Friedlitcb, for allowing his lamp to remain out at his licensed house, was fined Is. —R. Markham, for leaving his horse and dray, ss. Hislop, chimney on fire, ss. D. Brown, driving across a footpath, 12s 6d. —Louis Godfrey, rooting up shrubs in the Town Belt, 10s.—M. Moor, cattle trespassing, 2s Gd.—J. Briggs, two cases, do,, 10s, with 11s Gd costs.—Charles Flaxman, discharged, APPLICATION TO HAVE APPRENTICESHIP INDENTURES CANCELLED. Henry M. Stewart, apprentice to Messrs North and Secular, complained that his employers neglected to fulfil the terms of apprenticeship, as they had not taken moans to teach him the upholstery business, which they bad engaged to do ; and applied to have his indentures cancelled.—Mr Harris for the complainant; Mr Stewart for the defendants. Mr Stewart asked if under the 45th section of the Justices of the Peace Act the defendants would bo allowed to give evidence 7 His Worship referred to the Act, and considered thjit under it they would be allowed tb do 84,

Mr Harris said he should have raised no objection to that course, even had the point not been raised. Mr Harris stated that for some fifteen months previously to his becoming apprenticed to Messrs North and Secular, he had been in their employ as polisher ; and afterwards, for two years of the five years term of apprenticeship, they continued him exclusively on that branch of the business. The boy asked to be employed in the upholstery department, in order that he might learn every branch of the business. This reasonable request was refused, and as the boy would not go back to the polishing work, North and Sconlar refused to employ him, and had expressed the determination not to allow him to have employment elsewhere in the town. H. Manning Stewart, the complainant, had been fifteen mouths previous to becoming apprentice, employed by North and Sconlar to run errands and polish After his apprenticeship, he was kept two years at polishing, and was not allowed to leirn any part of the upholstery business. Mr North was absent twelve months in England, and during that time he and Mr Sconlar agreed that at the end of two years he should learn upholstery work. On the 14th August, he asked Mr North if on the following Monday morning he was to go into the upholstery branch. Mr North said no; although Mr Secular acknowledged he had agreed to that arrangement. As he considered that he was not fairly treated he refused to do any more polishing, and went into the upholstery department, where he commenced stuffing chairs and sofas as usual with the first steps in upholstery work. Mr North ordered him to go into the polishing room, which he refused, when Mr North ordered him to do so or he would kick him out of the place. On the Saturday afterwards Mr North refused to pay him his wages, and told him to go about his business. Subsequently ho went back, but was not permitted to work until legal costs were paid by bis mother. Ho was afterwards employed by Mr Dixon, whom Mr North went and cautioned against giving work to his apprentice. Mr Dixon told him if he (Stewart) was his apprentice, he had better take him away. North said be did not want him. He was willing to go back if put to the upholstering business. M. White who bad been all his life upholstering, knew the polishing department, and had known women learn to polish in three months. Two years would ba more than sufficient. The ordinary term of apprenticeship in England and New South Wales as upholsterers was seven years. Had he an apprentice bo should five him two-thirds of his term at upholstery, lo should not consider a lad fairly treated who was employed solely at polishing two years out of five. A lad could not learn even the rudiments of the upholstery business in two years and a half. The system usually followed in teaching apprentices was to give them turn about in different departments. Alfred Smith, polisher and cabinetmaker, had been in the employment of North and Seoular over five years. Stewart, ho thought was there about twelve months before he was bound. Up to August last he was always employed polishing. He did nothing at upholstering He should say two years was quite long enough for learning polishing. Stewart was a very passable hand at polishing. Thomas Dixon, cabinet-maker, knew Stewart, who was with him eight days. During that time he did anything required. He considered him as good a hand at polishing as ever he had had. Mr Stewart said the charge should not have been one of neglect of duty on the part of North and Scoular, but that they should have been called to show cause why the indentures should not be cancelled. His Worship said, on the plaintiff’s own showing, he should not order the cancillation of the indentions ; for ho quite agreed that the information should have been laid under another section of the Act. Mr Harris justified the application for the cancellation of indentures; because the defendants, having refused to allow the boy to work at the upholstering business, had put it out of tin ir power to complete their engagement, the remaining term not being long enough for the required instruction. His Worship said he possibly might be induced to give an order, out not for cancillation of the indentures. Mr Stewart said that the only coarse open was either dismissing the case or cancelling the indentures. Mr Harris had no objection to amend the information. His Worship thought an order could be made on the present information, as the difference was Neglect to instruct. Mr Stewart said the defendants would be willing to cancel the indentures if the cha'ge of neglect of duty was withdrawn. Mr Harris said every attempt had been made on the part of the complainant to effect an amicable arrangement, but in vain. His Worship said the proper course was for the boy to have gone back to polishingwork, and then laid his complaint if the defendants refused to instruct him in upholstery. Mr Harris would agree to the withdrawal of the information on condition that the indentures should be cancelled. Mr Stewart would give an undertaking to cancel the indentures if North and Scoular were allowed to do so of their own free will, and not as a matter of right or compuV sion. Mr Harris did not give the defendants credit for such generous feeling, and would not agree to the terms. His Worship thought it a pity to go on with the case, as the difference was so trifling. The opinion of the Court was that the boy had done wrong. That ought to be sufficient. Mr Stewart would not agree to the dismissal of the case unless on the terms stated. Mr Harris would not consent to such conditions. Mr North was called, who gave evidence as to what passed with Stewart. Henry Phillips, in the employment of Messrs North and Scoular, considered that he could teach Stewart upholstery in two years and a half. Ho, Phillips,-]waa five years apprenticed to the upholstery trade. Ho was the whole of the time at the trade, but at the end of five years be wanted experience. Mr Scoular said one morning he found the boy away from his work he having quarellcd with the polisher. He promised him then to take him from polishing at the end of two years, and put him to mattrass making. Had he done so he would have lost nix mouths at upholstery. The boy was enxious to learn mattrass making. Business arrangements would not permit the promise being fulfiled. He had striven to do his duty to the boy in every way. In eross-examination ho said he was not brought up to either

polishing or upholstery, but thought a boy might get a knowledge of two businesses in five years. Perhaps not perfectly. He considered he had done his duty by the boy by keeping him at the polishing branch of the trade. He was unwilling to take the boy back, and give the instruction he had covenanted to do. His Worship thought the case had better be adjourned, as the evidence did not carry out the information fully. Mr Harris called the attention of the Court to t >vo facts ; one was that the boy expressed his willingness to go back and learn his trade, and one of his masters said he was not willing to take him. His Worship adjourned to Tuesday next for consideration, at the same time expressing a hope that an amicable settlement would be arrived at.