BOOTMAKING AND FINISHING.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 3616, 24 September 1874, Page 3

BOOTMAKING AND FINISHING.

At the Water Police Court, the Bench (Messrs Josephson, Smart, and Rose by), sitting in the Summons Court, gave a decision which is likely to be of great interest to the boot trade. We, therefore, submit the particulars of the case. The plaintiff (Denis Healey), aged nineteen, for whom Mr Greer appeared, sued the defendant (Mr E. J. Tebbatt), boot manufacturer, Riley street, for failing to teach him the « art of making a boot,” in accordance with the terms of his indentures, which bound defendant to teach plaintiff “ bootmaking in the best manner of his art.” According to the plaintiff, he had entered on the fifth and last year of his apprenticeship, and had not as yet learned how to “ make ” a boot, but only to do the rougher portions of the work required, the boots having been afterwards “finished” by other hands. It was this finishing which plaintiff asssrfced he had not as yet learned, although he had been over four years in the employ of the defendant, The lad Healey admitted that since the date of his entering on his apprenticeship there had been a division of work between “ makers " and “ finishers ” of boots, the journeymen in each case having formed themselves into separate unions. The defendant, on the other hand, affirms that “ finishing ” and “ making” were and had been, in all large establishments, distinct arts. “ Clicking ” or “cutting ofit,” for instance, was another art, separated wholly from the two he had named. Perhaps the Bench would allow him the custom of the trade I—Mr Josephson ; Certainly not; I am of opinion that a hoot is not made till it is finished and fit for wear.”— Tebbatt: “ The Bench had better fine me, and so leave me the power of appeal, This is a most important matter to the trade.”—Messrs Smart and Roseby also agreed that a boot could not be considered as made until it was finished. Mr Tebbatt having said that in accordance with the terms of the indenture he would teach him “ making ” and not “ finishing,’? evidence was proceeded with. Mr Tebbatt shortly Afterwards asked the Bench to hear evidence as to what was the custom of the trade. There were several gentlemen who would be prepared to give such evidence. The Bench declined to take any evidence on this point, as they were already satisfied. Mr Greer, plaintiff’s counsel, said that to make a boot ■without finish? ing would be just as if a tailor sent a customer away with a coat after having only put the “ basting’.’ stitches to it. (Laughter.)— The Bench ultimately decided to fine defendant, if he wished to take the matter to a higher court j or to adjourn the case to that (lay four weeks, if fie were willing in the meantime to set about Reaching the plaintiff to “ finish ’ a boot.—Mr Tebbatt chose the last-named alternative, and the’ case was adjourned for a month.— ( Sydney Morning Herald.’