§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a Report in the "Wiltshire Times" of the following case, tried at Caine Petty Sessions: — Thomas Smart, an agricultural labourer, was summoned by his employer, a farmer named C. A. Tanner, for absenting himself from work without leave. Smart had been working for Prosecutor since Michaelmas last for 10s. per week, out of which 1s. per week was deducted for rent. Plaintiff, though he could prove no damage, yet claimed £1 on the ground that it was the custom of the county to claim damages when a man absented himself without notice. Defendant swore that before leaving he told his employer that unless he received an advance in wages he should leave his service. The advance being refused, Defendant absented himsented himself on the following Monday to go to Swindon to get hired, and returned on the following day. Plaintiff told him he would summon him for leaving his service without notice, and also for shooting rabbits on his land. The Bench held that it was not necessary for the employer to show that he had sustained any damage, and they inflicted a fine of 5s. as the amount of damage, and 5s. costs. The Defendant was further charged by his late employer, C. A. Tanner, with killing two rabbits on his land on the 1st of April last. The Defendant had hitherto borne a good character, and had not been before the magistrates previously. The Chairman fined Defendant 2s. 6d. with 7s. 6d. costs, to be paid fortnightly at the expiration of his other payments; and, whether he, having regard to the good character of Defendant and the general circumstances of the case, will take some steps to secure a mitigation of the punishment?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had no authority over the deci- 1138 sion of the Justices with respect to the charge of absence from work; but with regard to the killing of rabbits, it was quite clear that a man who killed them, having no right to do so, was punishable. He had often expressed his opinion to the Justices that it was undesirable to impose small fines with large costs, and he was constantly making representations to that effect. All ho could say was that he hoped in future magistrates would give effect to the excellent provision in. the Summary Jurisdiction Act, which enabled fines to be paid by instalments.