1862. ARCHER v. JAMES. able wares, under such price that it did not extend to The word "truck," which means "exchange of commodities," or "barter," (see Webster's Dictionary), is first used in stat. 12 G. 1. c. 34. s. 3., by which every clothier &c., or person concerned &c. in employing weavers or other labourers in the woollen manufacture, shall pay unto all persons by them so employed the full wages or price agreed on "in good and lawful money of this kingdom," and shall not pay "in goods or by way of truck, or in any other manner than in money as aforesaid." All previous statutes upon the subject are repealed by stat. 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 36. s. 1., and their provisions are consolidated in the statute immediately following, 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37. This case is alike within the language and policy of that statute, which was passed for the protection of workmen. Bowers v. Lovekin (a). [He cited sects. 1, 2, 3 and 4.] The wages of the plaintiff were to be paid in part by the rent of the frame and the other charges which are the subject of the set-off, and, therefore, "otherwise than in the current coin of the realm;" and this mode of payment is within the mischief against which the statute was directed, because the (a) 6 E. & B_584. rent of the frame is the same in whatever condition it is, and the workman cannot go and have a frame elsewhere. Also the deductions made in respect of this and the other charges, with the exception of the fines, are fixed and uniform whatever number of stocking heels is made in a week, and that depends upon the supply of material by the master. Upon the basis of such a contract as this, the amount of the wages to be paid to the plaintiff might be nothing; because the deductions might equal or exceed the amount due for stocking heels. It cannot be said that the wages are the amount calculated at 7d. per dozen heels less the deductions, because there is no relation between that amount and the deductions, the one being calculated by the piece, and the other by time. Where the manufacturer supplies the machines and room, and pays the workman a lower sum for net wages, sometimes, as is found in the case, 5d. a dozen for heeling, the master and workman gain by the rise, and suffer by the depression of the trade together; but under the arrangement between the defendants and the plaintiff at a certain state of the trade the defendants, by distributing their work among a number of workmen, and giving each only as much as would make 3s. 9d. worth of heels a week, would get them made for nothing, and the parish might have to support the men. Sect. 23 excepts the supply of fuel and tools or implements when the artificer is employed in mining, as well as of certain other things under certain circumstances: which shews that, but for the express saving in that section, those things could not be supplied in part payment of wages. In Chawner v. Cummings (a), the defendant for whom the plaintiff worked was a middleman, who rented frames (a) 8 Q. B. 311. 1862. ARCHER v. JAMES. and other machinery from a master manufacturer. In this case, there is a contract by which the master gets the profit which the middleman got in Chawner v. Cummings (a). Also that case did not decide that a deduction for fire or light, which are two of the charges here, would be legal. The interpretation clause, sect. 25, shews that the term "wages" is to receive a large construction, and means any recompense for labour. At any rate, a deduction for an uncertain sum like fines cannot be legal: they are a punishment for absence from work. Also the charge for winding the yarn cannot be deducted, because it is a cross claim for work done by the master for the workman. Macaulay (with him C. G. Merewether), for the defendants. The object of stat. 1 & 2 W. 4. c. 37., as shewn by its language, is, that whatever was the valued amount of the labour of the workman, between him and his master, should be paid in the current coin of the realm. The money or thing given for the labour is wages; and the question is, whether the plaintiff earned more than what has been paid in moncy, or whether any part of the wages agreed between him and the defendants has not been paid in money. Formerly there were two modes of carrying on the manufacture of stocking heels; either the manufacturer, who was a large proprietor of frames, let them out to a middleman, who employed artificers in working at the frames on his premises, as in Chawner v. Cummings (a); or the manufacturer let out the frames to a man who worked at them at his own home with his family or others; the manu (a) 8 Q. B. 311. facturer in each case providing the worsted or other material, to be brought back in stocking heels to be paid for at so much a dozen. If the artificer worked at a frame at his own house, which might be out of the town, he lost time in taking the stocking heels to the town, and had the expense of keeping the frame in order. The practice has recently been introduced of doing the work in factories belonging to the manufacturers, as stated in the case; the manufacturers providing the frames, the room, the fire and gas, the winding and the worsted or other material. In this case the wages of the plaintiff were not 7d. per dozen heels, but 7d. per dozen less the amount of charges deducted. The charges deducted are no part of the recompense for the plaintiff's labour, but only the mode of ascertaining the value of his labour. [Willes J. Why do not the defendants agree to pay 5d. per dozen or some other fixed sum, and say nothing about deductions? The same question was put by Wightman J. in Chawner v. Cummings (a).] It would be difficult to make an adjustment by an average on the items deducted; also the trade price of stockings fluctuates, but the price for the use of the frame is fixed. Hayes Serjt. replied. Cur, adv. vult. Feb. 1. There being a difference of opinion on the Bench, the following judgments were delivered. KEATING J. In this case the plaintiff, an artificer, in the hosiery trade at Nottingham, sued the defendants, his employers, to recover an amount of wages alleged to be due; and, in answer to the claim, the defendants (a) 8 Q. B. 311. 319. 1862. ARCHER V. JAMES. 1862. ARCHER V. JAMES. pleaded never indebted, payment, and a set-off consisting of certain charges against the plaintiff for the rent of frames and machines, and other charges of a similar character, which had been deducted by the defendants on the weekly settlement of accounts, and which, if such deductions were legal, would furnish an answer to the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff worked, without any agreement in writing, at the manufactory of the defendants, in making heels of stockings at 7d. a dozen, subject to a deduction of certain fixed charges, which was made every week from the amount of his work, taken at 7d. per dozen, and the balance only was paid to him in cash. These charges were 1. Frame rent for the use of the frames with which he worked, at 1s. 9d. per week. 2. Machine rent, at 4d. per week. 3. For the standing of the frames and machinery in the defendants' manufactory, 3d. per week. 4. Winding the material with which he worked, at 1s. per week. 5. Fines for irregular attendance, at 44d. a quarter of a day for time of absence. 6. Gas for the lighting the defendants' factory, at 4d. per week. 7. Fire in waiting-room. Amounting to about 3s. 9d. fixed charges, the fines varying according to circumstances. Whilst, however, the charges, to the amount of 3s. 9d. per week, were fixed, the amount of work performed varied according to the number of hours during which his masters required his services. It was contended by the plaintiff that these deductions were illegal, as being within the prohibitions contained. |