The Queen, on the Prosecution of Mappin and another, Respondents, Youle, Appellant
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1861 |
| Date | 29 April 1861 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 158 E.R. 311
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C. 30 L. J. M C. 234, 9 W R 637, 4 L. T. 299 Referred to, Unwin, v. Clarke, 1866, L. R. 1 Q B. 424
the queen, on the Prosecution of Mappin and Another, Re^tondentt, voule, Appellwit. April 29, 1861.-By memorandum in writing Y agreed to serve M as a cutler for three yeais, and M agreed to employ him and pay him for his work according to a schedule of prices Having quitted his service during the term, he was convicted under the 4 Geo 4, c. 34, and imprisoned for twenty-one clays, for unlawfully absenting himself from his service After his discharge fiom prison he did not return to the service of M , but went and worked elsewhere. On a second information laid against him for unlawfully absenting himself fiom the service, it was proved to the satisfaction of the justices that on the first occasion he absented himself on account of a difference with his master as to the scale of prices, that when, after his discharge from prison, he refused to return, he was advised by his attorney that he was not bound to do so , and the justices stated that they thought it \ery probable that he bona fide believed what his attorney told him 'I he justices convicted him under the 6 Geo 3, c 25, for unlawfully absenting himself, and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment On a case stated by the justices under the 20 & 21 Viet c 43 Held, that the conviction could not be sustained -Per Pollock, C B., and Bramvvell, B , tlubitante Martin, B, because the defendant in refusing to return appeared to have been acting bona fide in the exercise of a supposed right-Per Pollock, C B, and Martin, B, dubitante Bramwell, B, because the provisions of the 6 Geo. 3, c. 25, s 4, relating to this matter, are repealed or superseded by the 4 Geo 4, c .54.- Per Pollack, C. B , and Martin, B , dissentiente Bramwell, B , because the defendant having been once convicted for a departuie with intent to leave his service altogether, could not be convicted a second time under the 6 Geo 3, c 25, s 4 [S C. 30 L. J. M C. 234 , 9 W R 637 , 4 L. T. 299 Referred to, Unvnn, v. Claike, 1866, L. R. I Q B. 424 ] This was an information by E Mappin and J. C. Mappin, of Sheffield, cutlers, against Robert Youle, for that [754] he did, on the 19th of December last, by memorandum in writing, contiact to serve E Mappin and J C Mappin, as a journeyman in the business of a spring-knife cutler, for three years from the 19th of December last, at and for wages, at certain prices referred to in the .said memorandum , and (a) Robson v Ciuwley, 2 H & N. 766. 312 BEGIN A T. YOULE 6 H. & N 755. having entered into the service according to his contract, had been, in the execution of the said contract, and otherwise respecting the same, guilty of a, misdemeanor; for that he did, on the 29th day of August List, before the term of his sard contract was completed, unlawfully absent himself from hrs sard service, without leave or lawful excuse, and without his said masters' consent, and neglected to fulfil the conditions of the said contract, contrary to the statutes in that case made &c ; and after hearing the parties &c., the justices &c , did thereupon convict the said R Youle of having, on the 29th of August, at &c , wrthout notice, and before the term of hrs sard contract was completed, unlawfully, without the consent of his said masters or either of them, and without any just or lawful excuse, absented himself from his said service, and of having from thence unlawfully continued absent from such service, and of not having fulfilled his said contract, contrary to the form of the statute (6 Geo. 3, c 25), entitled "An Act for better regulating apprentices and persons working under contract/' and did adjudge him to be imprisoned in the house of correction for the space of one month. The defendant, being dissatisfied with this determination, as being erroneous in point of law, the justices stated a case (in substance) as follows - The defendant was brought before us on the 13th of September, 1860, when the following documents were put in and proved. An agreement, dated the 19th of December, 1859, [755] between R Youle and E and J. C. Mappin "R Youle doth hereby hire himself to and agree to work for E. and J. C. Mappin, as a cutler, for the term of three years from the date hereof, &c., during all which time the sard R Youle shall and wrll diligently and wholly employ and apply himself in the service of E and J C. Mappin, and shall not work for nor assist any other person or persons, &c. In consideration wheieof E. and J. C. Mappin do hereby hire and agree fully to employ R Youle in the capacity and for the term aforesaid, and to pay him for the work which he shall do under this agreement," according to a statement of prices, &c. (Then came a proviso for the determination of the agreement at the end of the second year, in which case R. Youle was to pay all money he might then owe.) "Signed for self and E. Mappin,-J C. Mappin, Robt. Youle " Then followed an agreement stating the prices of the work,-three shillings and ninepBnce for fourteen knives, &c., signed by R Youle Ifcwas proved that the defendant entered the service under the agreement and was absent from his service on the 29th of August, 1860, the day named in the information, and had not returned to his service after that day. That the defendant was found by one Grolding, the manager of the plaintiffs' works, on the llth of September, 1860, working at a manufactory which was not a part of Messrs Mappin's manufactory; when, on being asked how it was he had not come to his work now that he was out of prison, be said that he had offered to pay Messrs. Mappin the money he owed them, and he thought that Messrs Mappin ought to accept it and release him, he was " earning more money there, and did not want to return " It was proved that, on the complaint of Messrs. Mappin, he had been committed by a justice of the borough to the [756] house of correction at Waketield, on the 3rd of August, I860, for twenty-one days, for having absented himself from their service under the agreement; and that he had not returned to his service since...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Spooner v Alexander
-
Cooper, Appellant v Hannah Simmons, Respondent
...the apprentice cannot be convicted, unless he acted with an evil mind or an intention to commit a criminal offence : Regina v Youle (6 H. & N 753). It appears by the case that in absenting himself he acted boua fide, under the advice of his attorney, and believing that he was not bound to s......