III.  The third complaint was against a woman for singing and making a disturbance in the field.  Sentenced to six days’ solitary confinement.

IV.  An apprentice was brought up for not doing his work well.  He was a mason, and was employed in erecting an arch on one of the public roads.  This case excited considerable interest.  The apprentice was represented by his master to be a praedial—­the master testified on oath that he was registered as a praedial; but in the course of the examination it was proved that he had always been a mason; that he had labored at that trade from his boyhood, and that he knew ‘nothing about the hoe,’ having never worked an hour in the field.  This was sufficient to prove that he was a non-praedial, and of course entitled to liberty two years sooner than he would have been as a praedial.  As this matter came up incidentally, it enraged the master exceedingly.  He fiercely reiterated his charge against the apprentice, who, on his part, averred that he did his work as well as he could.  The master manifested the greatest excitement and fury during the trial.  At one time, because the apprentice disputed one of his assertions, he raised his clenched fist over him, and threatened, with an oath, to knock him down.  The magistrate was obliged to threaten him severely before he would keep quiet.

The defendant was ordered to prison to be tried the next day, time being given to make further inquiries about his being a praedial.

V. The next case was a complaint against an apprentice, for leaving his place in the boiling house without asking permission.  It appeared that he had been unwell during the evening, and at half past ten o’clock at night, being attacked more severely, he left for a few moments, expecting to return.  He, however, was soon taken so ill that the could not go back, but was obliged to lie down on the ground, where he remained until twelve o’clock, when he recovered sufficiently to creep home.  His sickness was proved by a fellow apprentice, and indeed his appearance at the bar clearly evinced it.  He was punished by several days imprisonment.  With no little astonishment in view of such a decision, we inquired of Maj.  C. whether the planters had the power to require their people to work as late as half past ten at night.  He replied, “Certainly, the crops must be secured at any rate, and if they are suffering, the people must be pressed the harder."[A]

[Footnote A:  We learned subsequently from various authentic sources, that the master has not the power to compel his apprentices to labor more than nine hours per day on any condition, except in case of a fire, or some similar emergency.  If the call for labor in crop-time was to be set down as an emergency similar to a “fire,” and if in official decisions he took equal latitude, alas for the poor apprentices!]

VI.  The last case was a complaint against a man for not keeping up good fires under the boilers.  He stoutly denied the charge; said he built as good fires as he could.  He kept stuffing in the trash, and if it would not burn he could not help it.  He was sentenced to imprisonment.