Viewing page 60 of 229

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Brief

W.C. Perrick
vs
Asbury a freeman

This case was tried before Mr Justice Loomis. He decided the Defendant a vagrant on the facts that he had been hired to the plaintiff under a written contract made in June '65 approved by Mr. Buckley, asst superintendent, that he violated his contract by leaving his employer without his consent and was absent over three days. [[stamp]]THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES OF THE UNITED STATES[[/stamp]] A written permit signed by Mr. Buckley for the Deft to him himself to one J Seaman was also in evidence.

The permission given by Mr Buckley was ex parte, as Perrick, the Plaintiff, had no notice of the application for it, and there is no proof that Plaintiff ever violated his part of the contract.

The remedy under the order of Conway, under whom the contract was made between Plff and Deft, was that the employee, if he violated his contract, should loose his wages and that he should be carried before the asst Superintendant and punished as the nature of the Care Required according to the evidence brought before him. But by the orders of General Swayne this powr of trying these cases was placed in the hands of the Civil authorities. The order of Gen Swayne abrogated no contract