Captain Hyde writes to Thursday's Times to justify his action
in the case of Luke Hills, the carter whose case was discussed in Parliament a week or two ago, and who was fined by a Bench of Sussex magistrates for breaking a year's engagement entered into with Captain Hyde. We stated the case pretty accurately at the time, but it appears that Captain Hyde holds that he has more evidence for his view of it than even his friends in Parliament put forth, and especially that he has a witness who could swear that the wife of Hills was not present at the making of the agree- ment, as she said she was, and that her evidence therefore was in that case worthless. Captain Hyde asserts that the agreement was written down and read over in the presence of his two sons to Luke Hills, and by him agreed to, though never signed ; and that he (Captain Hyde) spent £2 7s. 6d. in fetching Hills, and £2 10s. in fetching his successor when Luke Hills had broken his engagement,—though how both sums can be chargeable to the one man's fault is not very clear, and still less how Captain Hyde can charge /5 for the loss of five days' ploughing, when, as is alleged, Luke Hills gave twelve days' notice of his intention to leave. It is evident that the opposite parties will always have -different impressions of parole engagements, and it is, therefore, highly inexpedient,—as it is apparently illegal,—to punish any asserted breach of such parole engagements by heavy fines and imprisonment in default of paying them.
Previous page
