POLICE COURT. Monday, 30th August.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 131, 1 September 1847, Page 2

POLICE COURT. Monday, 30th August.

Watt v. L cc—lii this case the defendant appeared to answer a charge of absconding from his hired service. The honing seemed to create cun&ideiable interest, mid the auditois were unusually uuiueioiib. Mr. JBarliey appeared foi the prosecutor, ana Mr. Meuhnan tor the defendant. It appeared in evidence that the de fenJant had entered into an agioeinent to serve the j.iOafccnlor, Mr. Walt, who is a jeweller and watcl makfr s as a juurnejman, fur the utki of 12 months, v.d tit acfiUm t.ilm»f vwi ri es weekly, iimiei \i (» ii ct^.im 4 ii>i"it ibc iito^t,. ut >i hcui ptii'l '!!<> i i( - i.d >its paS'ia';^ ii'KJ' JScf'HC Town, aiiil a'"' i '• 'i L:m ad :H i»iune>, ai.vi that on b. ti:. u. .!_/, ;ie vlst iiuUut, after working for

some lime he had quilted his service, contrary to such agreement, for which the prosecutor c laimed redress. On the part of the defendant it was alleged by his Attorney, that he had been originally misled, as to the rate of wages and advantages attending his transmigration to Auckland, and an offer was made to pay back to the prosecutor his advances and expencea on condition of his cancelling the agreement. On the other hand, it was maintained for the prosecution, that no misrepresentation had in reality been made, and that the defendant had actually entered into partnership, and was carrying on business with another individual in the trade, while still receiving the prosecutor's money, so that as well in justice to himself, as to the community, he could not accept of any compromise of the kind. After a good deal of debating by the learned Counsel on both sides, the resident Magistrate (Mr. Beckham), decided that he had but one of two couises to follow, either to dismiss the complaint, or to convict the defendant. The latter, from the tenor of the evidence, he felt bound to do, and the question would be, in what terms. If Mr. Watt chose to press the charge, he must proceed to a judgment. The defendant by the desert ion of his agreement had exposed himself to a liability to be imprisoned with hard labour for three months. But if his employer chose to take him back on promise of amendment, the charge at that stage might be dismissed, subject to consideration in case of further complaint pending the continuance of the agreement. There being no likelihood of the parlies agreeing, the defendant especially using some recriminating language, calculated to widen the breach between both, the Magistrate sentenepd. the defendant to one week's imprisonment and hard laboui, with the liability afterwards to fulfil his engagement, should the prosecutor require him to do so.