304 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



Mr. Topping) used to designate 

 a certain habit, as a habit of 

 wetting a hollow tooth. But he 

 should bring a witness before 

 them to prove that he himself 

 had wished for his indenture, and 

 to contradict still farther his tes- 

 timony, although that was hardly- 

 necessary. 



Ann Boyd, a servant of the 

 defendant, gave evidence as to 

 conversations she had had with 

 the former witness. It was quite 

 equivocal as to the fact of dis- 

 missal. She saw the former 

 witness often intoxicated when 

 he came home. 



Stewart Carston, another ap- 

 prentice of the defendants, said 

 he slept with James Dockeray. 

 They generally went to bed at 

 the same time. James Dockeray 

 drank their master's rum through 

 a quill. He came home very 

 frequently intoxicated. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Scar- 

 lett.--Headmittedthathehad him- 

 self often come home drunk and 

 concealed it from his master. It 

 appeared that their master, mis- 

 sing some of the rum, called them 

 both before him, and that they 

 mutually charged one another 

 with the fault. 



Mr. Scarlett now called Nixon 

 again, but his Lordship, after 

 some consideration and argument, 

 refused to receive him. Mr, 

 Scarlett, therefore, began his 

 address to the jury by pointing 

 out the injustice done to his 

 witness by imputing drunkenness 

 and bad hours to him, while he 

 could call no witnesses to repel 

 those imputations. 



Mr. Justice Bayley. — I am 

 wrong. You may call your wit- 

 nesses. I was wrong in allowing 



Carston to be examined. Part 

 of the young woman's evidence 

 may be material as referring to 

 the dismissal. All the rest is 

 irrelevant. You may call your 

 witnesses to remove it. 



Mr. Scarlett. — If your lordship 

 strikes out all that evidence, I 

 have no occasion to call witnesses. 



He called young Dockeray up 

 again to ask him one question as 

 to the differences between him 

 and Carston. 



Mr. Raine. — Just one word. 

 Gentlemen, if you can believe 

 that rum- sucker, give your ver- 

 dict for the plaintiff. 



Mr. Scarlett enf<n"ced with 

 much point and cogency that the 

 necessary inference from the 

 letters to old Dockeray and to 

 the attorney, and from the whole 

 complexion of the transaction, 

 was, that the defendant had 

 dismissed James Dockeray. It 

 appeared from the evidence that 

 the apprentices had no other 

 time for exercise but between 

 eight and nine, and therefore it 

 was not reasonable in their master 

 to order them home before nine. 

 Unreasonable orders they were 

 not bound to obey. 



Mr. Justice Bayley, in summing 

 up, said, that he was anxious it 

 should be known that apprentices 

 were bound to keep the hours 

 prescribed to them whether rea- 

 sonable or not. Mr. Turner was 

 ■wrong in supposing nine a good 

 hour. Between eight and nine 

 in the winter season, when dark- 

 ness afforded facilities for con- 

 cealment, was a very bad hour 

 for young persons to have at 

 their own disposal. Mr. Turner 

 seemed alarmed at the society 

 kept by young Dockera)^ No- 

 thing; 



