696 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 24, 1872. 
to Mr. Boats, of York, a pharmaceutical chemist, and I 
had it to do. Young Pybus was a sharp boy for my 
purpose, such as to attend to the retail business, to serve 
customers, make pills, horse halls, weigh up things for 
sale, and do everything connected with the business. 
Perhaps he had one day’s work a week in the cellar. He 
was not obliged to he down there. He could have been 
upstairs if he did not like it. 
By his Honour : Perhaps he was pounding saltpetre 
or rosin in the cellar. 
Mr. Fawcett: Did you not keep him in the cellar two 
or three days a week, making grease or lubricating 
powder for machinery ? 
Witness : He was not obliged to he there. The second 
apprentice was named Simpson. He is dead. He did work 
in the cellar. I am not aware that it is said the working 
in the cellar killed him. Before young Pybus came to 
me I did keep an errand hoy. When I got a second 
apprentice, there were very few errands to go. Pybus 
did the work of the errand hoy until the time he ab¬ 
sconded. Errand hoy’s work amounts to nothing. 
Pybus did occasionally drag a handcart about the streets, 
hut it is only what other apprentices have to do. 
Mr. Fawcett: Quite so, quite so. 
Witness : Perhaps Pybus carried out and delivered 
two dozen bottles of soda-water in a fortnight. The rest 
goes out by carrier. Pybus did not drag the cart about 
the street more than once a month on the average. He 
did carry lubricating composition out three times, I be¬ 
lieve. There was half a hundredweight each time. My 
cellar is, perhaps, three times as large as the table (four 
feet by ten feet). There is gas burning in the cellar. 
Mr. Fawcett: How long have you kept your errand 
boys ? Have you had one more than three days at 
once F 
AVitness : I have one now. 
Mr. Fawcett: AVhat wages do you pay him? 
AVitness: That has nothing to do with the case. 
Air. Fawcett: I must have it. 
AVitness: I am paying him four shillings a week. I 
do not find him food or lod°ino\ 
O o 
Air. Fawcett: Do you suppose that it would teach a 
lad to be a pharmaceutical chemist by giving him a basin 
to catch water from a steam-engine ? 
AVitness: Certainly not. 
Air. Fawcett: Did not Pybus have to do this con¬ 
stantly ? 
AVitness : No; not once in two months ; and then he 
need not have done it unless he felt inclined. He knew 
it was wanted, and did it voluntarily. I will not swear 
that I did not tell him to do it. Ho might have refused 
to do it, and the other apprentice would have done it 
without a word. Before he went away ho had liberty to 
get and read any of my books. I have had fault to find 
with hine I have complained to his father of him not 
coming to the proper time. Two months before he went 
away, I saw his father in the Alarket Place. I told him 
I thought the hoy was doing well. AA r hen he went away 
I lent him a book, and said that he was to make good 
use of it, as he would soon have to take the other appren¬ 
tice’s place. 
Air. F 'awcett: Do you remember a particular occasion 
in September last, when Simpson was alive, when his 
eyes were much inflamed, and he complained that it was 
caused by being down in the cellar so much ? 
AVitness : I don’t remember that. 
Air. Fawcett: Do you remember telling Pybus that he 
would not be able to take Brown’s place when he left, and 
that Pybus replied it was very likely, as he had not had 
any'experience ? 
AVitness : Never. I never told Pybus that I would 
get another apprentice over his head, and keep him at 
the same kind of work that he was doing. I have not 
frequently told him that he was good for nothing. I have 
not the slightest idea how many prescriptions he had 
made up in my shop. Dozens I should say. He has 
dispensed from the prescription book regularly. He was- 
secretary of a Sunday-school. I persuaded him to give 
that up, and he idtimately did so. 
Air. Fawcett: Don’t you know that he went away be¬ 
cause you kept him as a simple drudge all the time, and 
that he could not stand it any longer ? 
AVitness: I believe that he took a dislike to the busi¬ 
ness. I believe that he had some conversation with an 
aunt from Harrogate. I know that he was learning- 
shorthand, and that his going away was prearranged. 
I have not seen him do any shorthand during the time 
he was attending to my business. I believe that Air. 
Pybus, the father, did once complain to me about the 
way I was teaching his son. I should sell my “lubri¬ 
cator” wholesale if I could get any orders for it. 
By Air. Edwards: The reason I persuaded him to give 
up the secretaryship of the Sunday-school was for him 
to have more time to learn the business. Porter’s work 
is done by some apprentices for half their appren¬ 
ticeship. 
By his Honour: I passed my examination as a phar¬ 
maceutical chemist six years ago. 
His Honour: AVhich of the clauses of the agreement 
says that the lad must sweep the shop ? 
AVitness: He never raised any objection to it, your 
Honour. 
The Attorneys in the case then caused some laughter 
by a discussion between themselves as to the sweeping- 
out of solicitors’ offices. 
His Honour: AVas it the Preliminary examination, 
which you passed ? 
AVitness : Yes, your Honour. 
His Honour: How far did you go in mathematics ? 
AATtness (evasively): It is not a very heavy ex¬ 
amination. 
His Honour: How far did you go ? Answer my 
question. 
AVitness: AVell; I did not get into mathematics at 
all, your Honour. 
His Honour here said that the only clause about which 
he had any doubt was, that with reference to a “ faith¬ 
ful ” apprentice,—whether it included sweeping the 
shop, etc., or simply behave himself properly to his- 
master’s family and marry his daughter. 
AVilliam Salmon, druggist, of Stockton, was then 
called for the plaintiff. He stated that he was thirty- 
two years of age, had served an apprenticeship at Dar¬ 
lington, had not passed a pharmaceutical examination, 
but considered the duties of an apprentice to be such as- 
were defined by the plaintiff. 
Air. Fawcett, in replying upon the case, said that in 
the action brought by Air. Pybus against Air. Horner, 
for breach of contract, the hoy had certainly gone away, 
but under the circumstances, if a verdict was given at 
all, it would only be for nominal damages. Taking Air. 
Horner’s evidence, where he tried to make it out that he 
was doing his duty to the apprentice by treating him as 
an errand boy,—he felt bold enough to say that Air. 
Horner was not doing his duty to him, and, moreover, was 
preventing the youth having opportunities of acquiring 
an insight into the business he was sent to learn. Air. 
Horner said that the boy was a good boy, who did every¬ 
thing he -was told to do, and yet he suddenly went away 
without any reason. No one would believe that the boy 
went without a reason, and he proposed calling him to- 
state that he was employed nearly the whole of the time 
as a mere drudge; and that he was often down in the 
cellar pounding away at one nauseous mixture or another. 
Air. Horner tried to blow hot and cold with the same 
breath. He said the lad was fit for anything and a great 
loss to him ; but when they came to the point of in¬ 
struction, he was compelled to ask what he had taught 
him. Air. Horner denied that he had told him he -would 
keep him at this sort of work, which was the reason he 
went away, hut the lad would contradict him still further, 
| and say he had not made up more than half-a-dozen pre- 
