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. Maj. C. said that these complaints were a fair specimen of the cases that came up daily, save that there were many more frivolous and ridiculous. By the trials which we witnessed we were painfully impressed with two things: 1st. That the magistrate, with all his regard for the rights and welfare of the apprentices, showed a great and inexcusable partiality for the masters. The patience and consideration with which he heard the complaints of the latter, the levity with which he regarded the defence of the former, the summary manner in which he despatched the cases, and the character of some of his decisions, manifested no small degree of favoritism.