SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLI, Issue 8540, 21 March 1908, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON—SATURDAY. (Before Mr Justice Cooper.) DIVORCE. Charles Peck (Mr Patterson) applied for a dissolution of marriage with Atlantic English Peck on the ground of adultery with co-respondent, Archie Boswell. No defence was filed, and respondent and co-respondent, did not appear. Mr Patterson stated that petitioner was married to respondent in March, 1889, at Palmerston North, and lived together in various places for a number of°years. In the year 1902 petitioners wile left her home with Boswell, and had lived with him ever since. Charles Peck, petitioner, stated he had married respondent in March, 1889, and after that had lived at Bunnythorpc for a number of years, and subsequently at Waikanae and Dannevirke. While- at Dannevirke his wife left him and went away with a man named Boswell, taking one of tlio children with her. Christina Dalziell stated she had known Peck and his wife- for about 17 years, nnd had always been on good terms with them. She saw respondent go away with co-respondent. As far as she knew, petitioner and his wife had always got on well together. . Hans Larsen, contractor, Dannevirke, stated he had known Boswell for some time, as he "had been boarding at his house while Mrs Peck was living there. There were two children there; one was Peck's and the other was Boswell's. Respondent was still living with Boswell. .. , Mr Patterson asked that his client bo given custody of three of the children. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute at the expiration of three months. Petitioner to bo given custody of three of the children until a further order of the Court is made. John Satherley applied for a dissolution of marriage with Ellen Satherley, as respondent had failed to return to him after a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights had been granted against her. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for petitioner. No defence was filed. John Sathorley, farmer, Rongotea, stated that he had been married to respondent in March,' 1907. In July he had filed a petition for restitution ot conjugal rights, which was granted. He had not seen or kcard of his wife since then. , , A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute at the expiration of six months. BREACH OF A DEED OF APPRENTICESHIP. Henry James Argyle and Albert Henry A.rgyle'(Mr Moore) v. Nathaniel Malcolm (Mr Harden), claim £200 damages for alleged wrongful dismissal, £200 for failure to teach and instruct Henry Albert Aro-yle in the trade of a. cabinet-maker, or," in the alternative, £100 for failing to properly teach and instruct the plaintiff since "the date of the deed of apprenticeship. The statement of the case was to the effect that a deed of indenture had been entered into by which plaintiff was apprenticed to defendant for four years, and that during the time he had been working had carried out his terms of the agreement. Defendant, it was al leo-ed, had not endeavoured to teach Argyle the trade during the period ho had been there (from August 13th, 1906, j to October 4th, 1907). On October 9th defendant had informed plaintiff's father j that as his son was subject to fits, and as there was considerable machinery about, his son was running a great deal of danger in the workshop. In consequence he asked that the deed of apprenticeship should be cancelled. This was refused, and defendant applied at the Magistrate's Court to have his request granted. The magistrate held that the application could not be granted, and gave his decision accordingly. Defendant had, however, refused to take Argyle back, and in consequence the claim for damages was brought forward. An application was also made by plaintiffff that, in the alternative of damages being given,, defendant shall take him back and properly instruct him in the trade of cabinet-making, and also pay him £1 15a per week from October 19th. 1907, to June 24th. 1908. For the defence it was stated that defondant had always been ready and willing to instruct the boy in his trade, but had been prevented from doing so by his incapacity through illness. It was stated that it was impossible to teach the boy the trade of cabineftaiaking, as he was subject to fits, and it was dangerous and imprope to allow him to work in any room where machinery was used. It was further stated for the defence that the boy had been guilty of such misconduct as would justify defendant in refusing , to t-each the boy the trade or allow him about the promises where such a trade was carried on, the misconduct being that he had failed to keep away from the machinery when ordered to do so by defendant and the foreman. , Henry Jarne3 Argyle stated that his son had been with defendant for about eighteen months. He was subject to fits, and h*d been under the- care of Dr. Martin, who thought he would grow out of them. This, witness believed, was the case. In an interview with tho foreman he- had asked him to give his son a chance. and had been told that his son could not possibly learn cabinetmaking, but was good at carving. In September defendant had written to him asking him to cancel tho indentures. This he refused to do, as he did not consider there- was any reason for doing so. There was a room at tho side of the factory where there was no machinery. The boy generally knew when the fits wore coming on. Since the case in tho Magistrate's Court defendant had refused to take his son back. Witness had seen Malcolm once, when he had offered to give his son his carving to ■ do at 8s per day. To Mr Harden: Previous to the indentures being entered into his son had been'away from home for. a number_ of months, and was under Dr. Martin's care. Dr. Martin had expressed the opinion that tho boy was growing out j of the fits. This he had told Malcolm. The offer to .take the boy into apprenticeship had come from defendant, and vhen it had been mentioned to Dr. Martin he thought the boy could not do hotter than enter that trade. About twelve months after his son was supposed to be growing out of the fits ho had another seizure. Assuming that the boy was subject to sudden seizures, he considered as a father- that it was not altogether safe for his sor. to work amongst the machinery. He did not -think he would have apprenticed him to the trade had he known that he was still subject to the fits. Albert Henry Argyle stated he had been apprenticed to defendant since August, 1906, and prior .to that had worked for him for about eighteen months.. He had a fit after he had been there a fortnight. He had not been very anxious to sign the indentures, but defendant had told him ho would be a fool if he did not. , He had been taught a little of the trade during the last few months ho had been there. On one occasion defendant, had told him if he did not get out he would kick him out. A few days before he had left he ha-d been sent to work in the room where the machinery was kept. The foreman had told him he would not tench him. After he had been ordered to keep away from the machinery he had only gono near when he had been called to do some work by the foreman and others. It was possible for defendant to teach him the trade without using the machinery. The fii" he bad in September was tho first he had had that year. He had not had any since, and they were growing leas as ho got older. He could generally feel when they were coming on. He had not injured himself in any way during, the whole time lie had been with Malcolm He had always been anxious to loarn his trade. To Mr Hnrden: He did not remember h'l.vincr had any fits outside the factory during the last twelve months, and had not told any of tho employees that he liad Had any. He was unconscious

when ho had a severe fit. Ho alleged the foreman had only attempted to teach him one or two things. One week the foreman had kept back part of his wages, but had returned the amount after witness had reported the matter to defendant. Ho sometimes had to carry timber to the different machines. He had worked at various occupations since, and had earned en an average 203 per week. To Mr Moore: It was quite possible to do the planing by hand. Alfred Andrew, cabinetmaker, stated that ho had been in the trade about 40 years. It was quite possible to teach anyone cabinctmaking without the aid of machinery. Ho could not say whether it was dangerous for the boy to _ use tools, as he had only seen him once in a fit, but ho had never heard of anything happening to him. Richard Robinson, cabinetmaker, stated that he had had 22 years' experience in cabinetmaking Tho trouble in the present case arose through defendant breaking the union award. Witness had explained the position to defendant, and defendant replied that ho thought he had complied with the award, but as ho had not v he would not keep tho boy any longer. The boy could not learn cabinetmaking if he was continually carving. (Left sitting.)