1862. WHITTLE V. FRANKLAND. In Lees v. Whitcomb (a), A. B. entered into a written agreement "to remain with C. D. for two years for the purpose of learning the business of" &c. and this was held bad for want of mutuality. [Crompton J. In the two cases you have cited the agreement was not signed by both parties.] [He also cited Ex parte Baker (b).] Again, there is nothing in this contract binding the master to employ the workman at all. Williamson v. Taylor (c) is an authority for the appellant on this point; and Aspdin v. Austin (d) bears, though less directly, on the question. [Crompton J. Emmens v. Elderton (e) goes far to shew that where the relation of master and servant exists between the parties, the master is bound to keep the servant in the service, otherwise the whole thing would be illusory.] In Williamson v. Taylor (c) there was no agreement not to discharge within a specified time. Secondly, as to the question of variance. The conviction is not set out in the case, which creates considerable difficulty. COCKBURN C. J. The objection on the ground of variance is got over by the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43. s. 1. Then, as to the main objection that this contract is bad for want of mutuality, the employer not being bound to find the appellant in work, I think that the decision of the justices was right. The agreement between the parties is that the appellant shall serve the employer, who, on the other part, undertakes that he will pay him wages fortnightly, and will not dis (a) 5 Bing. 34. (b) 2 H. & N. 219; 7 E. & B. 697. (d) Id. 671. (e) 4 H. L. Ca. 624, charge him without twenty-eight days' notice. From these two stipulations I think it arises by implication that the employer will find the appellant work, and will not discharge him from the service before a certain time. It would be perfectly illusory to hold otherwise; and, if this be so, there can be no objection to the contract on the ground of want of mutuality. CROMPTON J. (the only other Judge present) concurred. Judgment for the respondent. 1862. WHITTLE V. FRANKLAND. 1862. REGULA GENERALIS. HILARY TERM, 25 VICT. REGULA GENERALIS. Ir is ordered that, from and after the first day of Easter Term next inclusive, every special case, special verdict and bill of exceptions, set down in any of the superior Courts of common law, shall be divided into paragraphs, which as nearly as may be, shall be confined to a distinct portion of the subject, and every paragraph shall be numbered consecutively. And that the Masters on taxation do not allow the costs of drawing and copying any special case, special verdict or bill of exceptions, not in substance in compliance with this Rule, without the special order of the Court. HILARY VACATION, 25 VICT. [1859.] ARCHER against JAMES and others. [Friday, November 4th, 1859.] 1. The defendants, master manufacturers, employed the plaintiff, an artificer, without any agreement in writing, to make stocking heels at 1 & 2 W. 4. 7d. a dozen. The plaintiff was to find the labour, and to work on the c. 37. s. 1. defendants' premises, using their frame. The settlements were weekly. Wages. The amount due for the plaintiff's work was first ascertained; then from Deductions. the sum coming to him were deducted the following charges: (1.) Frame Set off. rent, for the use of the frame with which he worked, at 1s. 9d. per week. Appeal. (2.) Machine rent, at 4d. per week. (3.) For standing room in the de- Costs. fendants' factory, at 3d. per week. (4.) Winding the yarn, at 1d. per week. (5.) Fines for irregular attendance, at 4d a quarter of a day for time of absence. (6.) Gas for lighting the defendants' factory, at 4d. per week. (7.) Fire for heating the defendants' factory. The amount of work performed by the plaintiff during the time he was in the defendants' employ varied from time, according to the state of trade, the plaintiff being sometimes employed for a greater and sometimes for a smaller number of hours in the day; but the charges, with the exception of the fines, were fixed and uniform, and were made whatever the amount of earnings. In an action to recover wages alleged to be due, the defendants pleaded Never indebted, and a set-off, consisting of the above charges. Held, per Pollock C. B., Bramwell B. and Byles J. (affirming the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, which was founded upon the authority of Chawner v. Cummings, 8 Q. B. 311), Williams, Willes and Keating JJ. dissentientibus, that a contract to pay the plaintiff's wages, subject to the above deductions, was not a contract to pay part of such wages otherwise than in the current coin of the realm, within sect. 1 of the Truck Act, 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37., and was therefore legal. 2. When the decision of the Court below is affirmed on appeal, the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber being equally divided, the successful party is not entitled to costs. DECLARATION for money payable by the defen dants to the plaintiff for wages due and of right payable from the defendants to the plaintiff for his work and labour as an artificer, workman, and labourer in and about the making, knitting, and preparing of woollen, worsted, yarn, and cotton manufactures, by [1859.] ARCHER V. JAMES. him done and performed as the hired artificer, workman, labourer, and servant of the defendants; and for work and labour of the plaintiff in and about the manufacturing trades and occupations of making, knitting, and preparing of woollen, worsted, yarn, and cotton manufactures, by him done and performed for the defendants, at their request; and on an account stated. The defendants pleaded never indebted, and payment: and also a set-off for money payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, for the plaintiff's use, by the defendants' permission, of certain frames and machines, goods and chattels, of the defendants, and standing room for the same; and for the hire of chattels and effects by the defendants let to hire to the plaintiff; and for work done by the defendants for the plaintiff, at his request; and for money paid by the defendants for the plaintiff, at his request; and for money found to be due from the plaintiff to the defendants on accounts stated between them. Upon these pleas issue was joined. The following is a copy of the particulars of the defendants' set-off. "1. Frame rent, at 1s. 9d. per week. 14 10 5 On the trial, before Williams J., at the Summer |