there is a special provision, that nothing therein contained shall authorize justices, acting in execution of that act, to establish a rate of wages without the mutual consent of both master and workmen. The statute of 5 Eliz. c. 4, only gave power to the magistrates "to limit, rate, and appoint," wages, and gave no power to order payment of them. That power was, however, assumed by the magistrates, and their assumption of it was, by construction of law, held to be legal (1). But the statute being deficient, as it extended only to such wages as should be rated, and to servants in husbandry, and contained no power to admit the servant's oath in evidence; another act was passed in 20 Geo. 2 (m), giving more extensive powers to magistrates, and extending those powers to disputes between masters and various other descriptions of servants than those mentioned in the statute of Elizabeth. And this act has been found so beneficial in some respects, that although, as we have seen, repealed as to rating wages, several other acts have been subsequently passed extending the powers conferred by it in other respects (n). The Statute Book also contains, (in addition to the act relating to the arbitration of disputes between masters and workmen (0), an act consolidating the law relating to combinations amongst masters and workmen (p), and, also, an act relating to the payment of wages otherwise than in money, commonly called the Truck Act (q), which are applicable to most trades), a large number of statutes applicable to masters and servants in particular trades, which it is not thought necessary in this place to refer to at greater length, as they are not of general interest: the principal of those now in existence will be found in the Appendix. Acts of Parliament have also been passed at various times for the regulation of the employment of children and young (1) Post, p. 325, note (a). (m) 20 Geo. 2, c. 19, post, p. 326. (n) As to masters and workmen, see 27 Geo. 2, c. 6; 31 Geo. 2, c. 11, s. 2; 6 Geo. 3, c. 25; 4 Geo. 4, c. 34; 10 Geo. 4, c. 52. See post, p. 325. As to masters and apprentices, see 32 Geo. 3, c. 57, s. 11; 33 Geo. 3, c. 55; 4 Geo. 4, c. 29; 4 Geo. 4, c. 34; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 7. (o) 5 Geo. 4, c. 96, post, p. 342. (p) 6 Geo. 4, c. 129, post, p. 342; 22 Vict. c. 34. (q) 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 37, App. p. 417. с persons in cotton and other factories, and for the preservation of their health and morals. The first act for this purpose was passed in 1802 (r), and was amended in 1819 (s). Further enactments on the subject were made in 1825 (t), the provisions of which having been defeated for want of form, it was found necessary again to amend the law in 1829 (u). At the commencement of the reign of Will. 4, however, all these acts (except the first) were repealed, and other regulations enacted in lieu thereof (x). But a few years afterwards those regulations were in their turn also repealed, and another act passed, which (as amended by subsequent acts) now regulates the law upon the subject (y). The provisions contained in these acts, which are applicable to young persons, (that is, persons above thirteen and under eighteen years of age (z), ) were first extended to females above that age in 1844 (a). But as it is thought advisable to print these acts in extenso in the Appendix, it is not considered necessary to advert further to them in this place. In 1851, an Act of Parliament was passed for the protection of apprentices and servants, which will be further adverted to hereafter (b), and which for the first time rendered it a misdemeanor for any master or mistress, legally bound to supply necessary food and clothing or lodging to an apprentice or servant, wilfully, and without lawful excuse, to refuse or neglect to provide the same. By direction of the Statute Law Commissioners, who were appointed 23rd of August, 1854, a bill appears to have been prepared by Mr. Rogers, and laid before the Board on the 13th of December, 1854, for Consolidating the Statutes relating to masters and servants or workmen. This bill was originally prepared by Mr. Rogers, as a member of a former Board (appointed 23rd of July, 2 Will. 4), but was revised and com 13 & 14 Vict. c. 54; 16 & 17 Vict. c. 104; 19 & 20 Vict. c. 38. See these acts in the Appendix. (z) 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 73. (a) 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 32, and see 13 & 14 Vict. c. 54. (b) 14 & 15 Vict. c. 11. post, p. 130, and see the act in the Appendix, p. 529. pleted by him for the Statute Law Commissioners (c). After being under their consideration for two years and upwards, it was ordered to be printed on February 11th, 1857; but it appears never to have been introduced into either House of Parliament, and nothing now appears likely to be done to effect the very desirable object (d) of Consolidating those Statutes. (c) See their Report, 10 July, 1855. (d) Let any one who doubts the desirability of it, read such cases as Ex parte Baker, 26 L. J., M. C. 155; ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. Page 5, note (1). Add a reference to Wright v. Chard, 29 L. J., Ch. 82. Page 6, note (r). Add "Where an infant can disaffirm and avoid a contract, he must do it within a reasonable time after coming of age, Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company v. Black, 8 Exch. 181." Page 11, note (y). Add "See also 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 4." Page 14, note (t). Add "See also Green v. London General Omnibus Company, 29 L. J., C. P. 13, where it was held that a trading corporation was liable for a wilful act done by their servants, if done within the purposes of the incorporation." Page 45, line 9 from bottom. Add "nor are they entitled de jure to a reasonable time allowed them for the removal of their furniture, &c. But if they go on simply for that purpose and do not remain an unreasonable time, or exclude their master, they could perhaps not be treated as trespassers, Doe v. M'Kaeg, 10 B. & C. 721." Page 52, note (k). Where a domestic or menial servant, such as a cook, is discharged with a month's wages, in lieu of notice, she is not entitled to board wages for the month, but only to a month's wages in addition to the amount due to the time of discharge, Gordon v. Potter, 1 Fost. & F. 644; Hill, J., at nisi prius. Page 100, note (x). Thompson v. Ross, is reported also in 29 L. J., Exch. 1. note (y). Add a reference to Manley v. Field, 29 L. J., C. P. 79. Page 101, line 20 from top. Add "except by consent of the parties, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, s. 23." Page 106, note (h). Add "See also Daugars v. Rivaz, M. R. Jan. 24, 1860." Page 108, note (r). Add, "In Crocker v. Molyneux, 3 C. & P. 470, it was held, that a servant who was hired at thirty guineas a year, and a suit of clothes, and was provided with a livery, but was dismissed without sufficient cause before the end of the year, could not maintain trover for the livery against his mistress, the property in it being in his mistress, who provided it, and that his remedy was an action for not being allowed to serve to the end of the year, and so to become entitled to the livery." Page 119, line 2 from bottom-327, note (m). Add " But where a discharged servant has brought an action in the County Court for wrongful discharge, and been defeated, he cannot afterwards take proceedings for recovery of wages before a magistrate, Routledge v. Hislop, 29 L. J., M. C. 90." Page 140, note (d). See also Abraham v. Reynolds, 1 Law Times, N. S. 330; and Potter v. Faulkner, Q. B. Feb. 14, 1860, in which last case doubts were thrown upon the authority of the case of Degg v. Midland Railway Company. Page 157, note (r). Add, after Foster v. Smith, a reference to Ramazotti v. Bowring, 29 L. J., C. P. 30. Page 303, note (a). In R. v. Hoare, 1 Fost. & F. 647, it was held by Wightman, J., after consulting Pollock, C. B., that a person who had formerly been a servant, and was employed to collect debts without remuneration, and who, under the circumstances, was not a servant, could not be indicted under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 54, s. 4, as a bailee; as a person who received money on behalf of another did not thereby become a bailee of the money, not being bound to hand over the particular sum which he had received. A TREATISE ON The Law of Master and Servant. CHAPTER I. THE PARTIES TO THE CONTRACT.-WHO MAY CON generally. As a general rule, every person of the full age of twenty-one Parties to years, and not under any legal disability, is capable of becom- the contract ing either a master or a servant. But in order that a contract Servant must of hiring and service may be legally binding (a), it is neces- be sui juris, sary, that at the time such a contract is entered into, the party in order to about to be hired should be free from any other engagement binding conincompatible with that into which he is about to enter: in tract of other words, he must be sui juris. enter into hiring and service. Thus, whilst a settlement could be gained by hiring and As in cases service (b), it was held that the party who hired himself as a of settlement servant must, in order to acquire a settlement by service under by hiring and that hiring, have been, at the time of hiring, disencumbered from any other relation which might interfere with or defeat (a) It is not always necessary to prove a legally binding contract of hiring a service de facto is, as we shall hereafter see, sufficient for many purposes. Even in an action for disturbance of a freehold office, it is not necessary to show an appointment by deed, proof of having acted in the office for several years is sufficient. (b) By statute 4 & 5 Will. 4, B service. |