Assizes at Nottingham, in 1859, it appeared that the plaintiff had, from the 20th September, 1855, until the 25th April, 1857, and again from the 6th June, in the latter year, until the 4th June, 1859, been a framework knitter, employed in a branch of the hosiery manufacture by the defendants, who carry on their business as manufacturers of hosiery in their own premises, namely a factory, at Nottingham. The plaintiff and other artificers worked for the defendants, in the frames and machines belonging to the defendants, in the factory. The plaintiff's work consisted in making heels of stockings with material of the defendants, the plaintiff merely finding labour; and he was paid for his work weekly, upon the basis of 7d. per dozen heels made by him during the week, subject to certain fixed charges made by the defendants, which are mentioned in the particulars of the set-off, and are hercafter more particularly set out and explained. At the weekly settlements the amount of the plaintiff's work was first ascertained, then the amount of charges was deducted, and the balance paid to the plaintiff in cash, to which he had never made any objection. The following are the particulars of the charges so deducted, and mentioned in the defendants' set-off. 1. A frame rent, or sum of 1s. 9d. per week, for the use of the frames furnished by the defendants (in their own factory), and there employed by the plaintiff in performing his work. 2. A machine rent, or sum of 4d. per week, for the use of a machine furnished by the defendants in their own factory, by which stockings are narrowed much quicker than formerly, and there also employed by the plaintiff in performing his work. [1859.] ARCHER V. JAMES. [1859.] ARCHER V. JAMES. 3. Threepence per week as a remuneration to the defendants for the use by the plaintiff of their factory wherein to perform the work for them, and for the standing room of the frames and machinery therein which the plaintiff worked. 4. A sum of 1s. per week for winding the yarn, which would be a necessary operation for each workman before the yarn could be used for the purpose of manufacture, but which winding had been performed before the yarn came upon the defendants' premises. 5. Fines imposed for irregular attendance at the factory, at the rate of 41d. a quarter of a day for the time of absence. 6. For gas supplied by the defendants for the purpose of lighting their said factory, instead of the men lighting it themselves. 7. For firing supplied by the defendants for the purpose of heating their said factory, instead of the men heating it themselves. The amount of work performed by the plaintiff during the time he was in the defendants' employ varied from time to 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 his earnings. The plaintiff was, by the weekly settlements, during the time he was so in the defendants' employment, paid the whole amount due to him as such artificer as aforesaid, less the charges and deductions aforesaid, and for which alone, accruing during the whole service, the present action is brought. Previously to the case of Chawner v. Cummings (a), it had been the established and unvarying usage in the hosiery manufactures in the counties of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester, for a century past, for the employer to let the frames, at a rent, to the person with whom he contracted for the manufacture of his materials into goods and upon settling with the workman to deduct the amount of frame rent from the gross price agreed for working up the materials into goods. The frames were kept in repair by the owners of them, at frequent expense, and the number of them for which weekly rent had been for many years charged was very great. It was admitted that the other deductions made by the defendants in this case were made according to the then usage of the trade, except as mentioned in the next paragraph, and that such usage was known to the plaintiff, and that he was during the whole period aforesaid dealt with accordingly. This work, however, has recently been introduced into factories, and, in consequence, the system of payment in such factories is not as yet uniform, some employers deducting charges, while others make a corresponding diminution in the rate of payments, so as to make the nominal sum net instead of gross. For example, in such a case 5d. per dozen is paid for heeling, instead of 7d., as paid by the defendants. The sum for which this action was brought is the total amount of the said charges or deductions which accrued during the period of the plaintiff's employment by the defendants. The plaintiff relying on stat. 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37., commonly called the Truck Act, disputed the legality of these charges and deductions, and con (a) 8 Q. B. 311. [1859.] ARCHER V. JAMES. VOL. II. F B. & S. [1859.] ARCHER V. JAMES. tended that he was entitled to recover the full amount per of his wages or earnings at the rate of 7d. per dozen. The defendants contended that the sum of 7d. dozen was not the wages payable to the plaintiff until the usual charges had been paid out of the same. There was no written contract between the parties. The jury found that all the deductions were according to the usage of the trade; and it was agreed that, but for stat. 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37., the accounts had all been agreed and settled between the parties. The learned Judge thereupon directed a nonsuit to be entered, reserving leave to move to enter a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of all or any of the items in the defendants' set-off. In Michaelmas Term, 1859, Hayes Serjt. moved for a rule nisi accordingly, on the ground that the deductions, which were the subject of the set-off, were to be considered as payment of wages, and were, therefore, illegal by the Truck Act, 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37., the object of which was that wages should be paid in the current coin of the realm. COCKBURN C. J. The principle of the decision in Chawner v. Cummings (a) applies to this case. The deductions in question are expences incurred by the master, in providing accommodation for the workman, which the master takes into account before the real amount of the wages is ascertained; therefore they are not within stat. 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37. If the plaintiff is desirous of having the decision in Chawner v. Cummings (a) reviewed, he does not require our assistance. (a) 8 Q. B. 311. WIGHTMAN J. These deductions are within the principle of the decision in Chawner v. Cummings (a). Whatever doubts I might have entertained if the question had now come before us for the first time, I think we are bound by that decision. [1859.] ARCHER V. JAMES. HILL J. concurred. Rule refused, (a) 8 Q. B. 311. IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER. ARCHER against JAMES and others. For head note, see antè, p. 61. THE plaintiff having appealed from the above decision, the case was argued, in Easter Vacation, May 9th, 1861, and Trinity Vacation, June 14th, 1861, before Pollock C. B. and Bramwell B., and Williams, Willes, Byles and Keating JJ. Hayes Serjt. (with him Manley Smith), for the plaintiff. -It has been the object of the Legislature, in a series of statutes beginning with 4 Edw. 4. c. 1., and ending with 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37., commonly called the Truck Act, to enforce the payment of wages to artificers in the current coin of the realm. The earliest enactment on the subject is in sect. 5 vers. fin. of stat. 4 Edw. 4. c. 1., by which, reciting that "in the occupations of clothmaking, the labourers thereof have been driven to take a great part of their wages in pins, girdles, and other unprofit Saturday, February 1st, [and Wednesday, May 14th.] |