UNKNOWN

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 125, 19 July 1911, Page 7

UNKNOWN

I>; rv. RH.-T \u i > i. iN . The 1.,!I■ r ■ :j•.! •.• of mv;,--, .it i in' s .I.!:?m •. w i; io ii i- cidivd 11om till.: 'Lu iltlOli v-ivil jlvjh Mhi.l Ox JUilo t/tii: What is a "Commodity?" In holiday time the papers are inevitably less interesting than when .Parliament and tiie Com is arc sitting. But as far as tgo law is concerned the doings in inferior tribunals are sometimes worth notice, and an instance was supplied on Tuesday last when the question—what is a ‘■commodity’' Y —was dealt with at some length before M. Mar,sham at Bow street. The proceedings were taken under the Pam -Regulation Act of 1872. One of the regulations made it illegal to sell or let any “commodity'' in the parks. Mr Curtis Rennet, was of opinion that a postcard was a commodity, and had convicted and hound over men who had been charged before him with selling ■postcards in the park,, but Mr Marsham had discharged a man on the ground that a postcard was not a commodity. it was desirable, Mr Leycestcr continued, to have the matter settled, and, if necessary, the magistrate would he asked to state a case for the High Court. Mr Marsham pointed out that the regulation in question dealt with the “selling or letting” of any commodity, and asked how could you lot a postcard. Counsel replied that some commodities could be let and some sold, and that the definition of commodity in Webster's Dictionary was: “That which affords convenience, advantage or profit, especially in commerce; everything movable that .so bought or sold (except animals).” It was therefore submitted that anything which could he sold was a commodity. The regulation was intended to be as wide as possible, and ihat was win the word commodity was nm 1. ha mutually the Magistrate said he had come to the conclusion that his original (.finion was wrong, and that he took in narrow a view of the word commodity, which apparently line a v.ie’er meaning than the one ho ;; it upon :t. Ho thought now that the prisoner had no right to sell postcards in the park, and inllictcd a c mtin d hue. ApprbißEos.'iilip. Another case n orth the attention of traders was one wiium n is Iviv m M;. DT'jyncourt at Aoiili Lennon, and ia wlncu a \ uutn was summoned ...y ins employers who complained tn.u lie had nut- peiformed las eontiact of appreimcesmp. ibe facts were not disputed. Tixe defendant was oouud to the complainant io» five years from January 21, nlOii, and that period of years liau expand, hut lor years the defendant had been absent Horn his work. The defendant said that.his term had expired, put the complainant said he nad to serve them ii>, e years and make up the 2” years he. nad .lost. Counsel said in.it he had examined tie- authorities, hat was unable to hud ary. n.maf case on too point; indeed, die only case In the law repo! ts on the (inject aas In at of ‘‘The King against toe minimiaul;; of Ilindringiiam.” in that case a pauper was apprenticed by the guardians of Hindringham on March 7 ,1/80, for four years. Soon after he was met by the pressgang, and, with the consent of his master, went into the Navy, in which lie served for three years. In 1783, after leaving the Navy, lie hired himself to one Wilson in another town. The matter came before the Court after the term of apprenticeship had expired, but, nevertheless, the man and his family were ordered to go hack to Hindringham. On tnis case counsel contended that the law was that a master could demand service for the full term of apprenticeship, and that ail breaks in employment must he made up. The Magistrate, however, thought that counsel had misread the case. It referred only to the settlement of the apprentice. He held that Griffin’s apprenticeship terminated live years alter the date of the deed, and that he was now free.