wages and notice. the middle of the year. If an indefinite hiring be stated on a record, and Sixthly, Weekly nothing shown to control it, it will be deemed a hiring for a year: but that is in the absence of any circumstance from whence a different intent is to be collected. Afterwards Lord Ellenborough said, "I hope it will be understood, that where nothing is said in the contract about time, but a reservation of weekly wages, it is only a weekly hiring." -Grose, J. It appears that the wages varied at the different seasons of the year: that cannot furnish the inference of an implied hiring for a year, for then the wages must have continued as they were first settled.-Le Blanc, J. There is another circumstance confirmatory of the construction that it is a hiring for a year, for the servant in the middle of the year required an advance of wages, to which the master acceded, a circumstance scarcely probable if they had contracted for a year. Rex v. Warminster, 6 B. & C. 77; 9 D. & R. 70; 4 D. & R., M. C. 197. The pauper, being of age, was hired to Mr. Thring, a solicitor at Warminster, as gardener. At the time of the hiring, Mr. T. asked the pauper what he should give him a-week. The pauper asked 201. a-year wages, which Mr. T. refused to give, but said he would give 6s. a-week for the winter, and 9s. aweek for the summer, which the pauper agreed to take. He was to be in Mr. T.'s house. Under this hiring the pauper served more than a year, living in the house. He and his master then came to a fresh agreement for weekly wages, without board; and about a week afterwards Mr. T., upon detecting some irregularities among his servants, discharged the pauper without notice. During the service under the first hiring, the pauper, on one occasion, gave his master a month's notice of his intention to quit; but the notice was not acted upon. The wages were accounted for weekly; but were paid occasionally, as they were wanted, and applied for by the pauper. Rex v. Dedham, Rex v. Pucklechurch, Rex v. Dodderhill, and Rex v. Lambeth, were cited.— Abbott, C. J. The cases referred to are all directly in point; but independently of any authorities, it is perfectly clear, from the facts of this case, that the master never intended to hire the pauper for a year. He first asks the pauper what he shall give him a-week-the pauper asks 201. a-year: the master refuses to give that, but offered a certain weekly sum, which the pauper accepted. That clearly negatives the supposition that a yearly hiring was intended. Rex v. Rolvenden. In June, 1820, the pauper agreed with W. Masters, an innkeeper, at Rolvenden, to serve him as an ostler. The pauper and his master bargained by the week, at 2s. per week in the summer, and 1s. 6d. per week in the winter. The pauper entered into the service in June. He received 2s. per week till the following Michaelmas: and from Michaelmas to Lady-day, 1821, 1s. 6d. per week; and from Lady-day to Michaelmas, 28. per week. On the evening of the 23rd of February, 1823, the pauper left his master's service, in consequence of a disagreement that took place between his master and him on the morning of that day. Bayley, J. This case cannot be distinguished from Rex v. Warminster. The hiring here is for an indefinite period, at weekly wages, which is a weekly hiring. The mere arrangement that the wages shall be at one rate in the summer, and at another in the winter, does not show that the parties contemplated a service to endure through the summer and the winter, and, therefore, that they intended a hiring for a year; but shews, only, that they intended that if the servant, being hired at weekly wages, should remain till the summer, he should then have so much per week, and if he should remain till the winter, he should then have so much per week. The true meaning of such an arrangement is merely this: that the servant's wages, as a weekly servant, are to be regulated by the seasons. Looking at the terms of this contract altogether, they seem to me, clearly, to constitute only a weekly hiring, no service under which could confer a settlement. The other judges concurring, the order of sessions was quashed. Rex v. Clare, Burr, S. C. 819; 2 Bott, 295; 1 Nol. P. L. 367, 372. The pauper, a journeyman miller, at Michaelmas, 1768, let himself to E. S. by the month, at the wages of 8s. a-month, and was at liberty to depart at a month's wages, or a month's warning. At the time of hiring, it was agreed that if he continued in her service till harvest-time, he should be at liberty, during the harvest month, to let himself to any other person for the harvest Where the servant asked yearly wages, and the master offered weekly wages, cepted, this was not a yearly hiring. which were ac A pauper agreed with an innhim as ostler, at two shillings aweek in the sumshilling and sixpence a-week in that this was a the winter: Held, weekly hiring keeper to serve mer, and one only. A hiring by the month, at a month's wages or a month's notice. Sixthly, Weekly month. He continued five years in the service of E. S., and, during that time, wages and constantly let himself to some other person for the harvest, and received the common wages of 8s. from his mistress for the harvest month, and paid her one moiety of the wages earned at such harvest; but generally, at the end of every month, and sometimes weekly, received his wages of 8s. a-month, or in that proportion. He considered himself as a monthly servant, and at liberty to leave his mistress at the end of any month, on payment of a month's wages, or giving a month's warning. This point was given up by the counsel as indefensible: the hiring being only a hiring by the month. A hiring to work and sixpence per week, and condition for a week's notice, does not gain a settlement. Rex v. Hanbury, 2 East, 423; 1 Nol. P. L. 332. The pauper agreed to at three shillings work for one Saunders, as a blacksmith, at 3s. 6d. per week, with meat, drink, washing, and lodging at S.'s house to part on a week's notice by either party. The pauper continued to serve for six years, without any alteration of terms, when S. died. The pauper received his wages every Saturday night or Sunday morning: went where he pleased on Sundays, as well as on other days; but was entitled to his board if he stayed at home. On other days, if he wanted a holiday, he asked for it and had it, his master deducting his wages. The sessions thought this a general hiring. It was argued that the mere continuance of the service for six years, warranted the inference of a general hiring.-Lord Ellenborough said, Here the particular terms of the agreement are stated, and therefore we cannot presume that the pauper served under a different contract. His lordship added, that this case was decided by those of Dedham, Bradninch, and Newton Toney. That in the first, Lord Mansfield said, that all the cases required a hiring for a year, but that that was only at so much a-week. In the second, he observed that the pauper was under no obligation to serve a year, and unless that be so, there can be no settlement gained; and that Rex v. Hampreston turned upon the circumstance of a month's notice to quit being required. But here the contract was determinable at a week's notice. Though the sessions have drawn a conclusion that this was a general hiring, yet it is clear that they meant only to state it as a conclusion of law from the antecedent facts, the propriety of which they meant to refer to us. But there is no ground for presuming a general hiring; it appearing expressly what the agreement was, in fact, which negatives a hiring for a year. Instances of implied yearly hiring. But a hiring at three shillings a week "the year round," each to fortnight's notice, gains a settlement. The following are instances in which the terms of agreement were, in most respects, like those in the former cases, but something was added by which it appears that a yearly hiring was intended. Rex v. Birdbroke, 4 T. R. 245; 1 Nol P. L. 371. M. Meers was removed from Stoke to Birdbroke. Order confirmed. Case: The pauper was hired by J. Olley, farmer, at Stoke, at 3s. per week the year round; be at liberty on a each was to be at liberty on a fortnight's notice, but the pauper was not to go away at seed time, hay, or harvest. He stayed in that service a year, and received his wages at different times whenever he pleased.-Lord Kenyon, C. J., said, no doubt can be entertained on this case. It does not even rest on a general hiring, for this was an express contract to serve the year round. But it is said that this cannot be considered to be a hiring for a year, because there was a reservation of weekly wages, and because each party was to be at liberty to put an end to the agreement on giving a fortnight's notice; but whether the wages be to be paid by the week or the year, cannot make any alteration in the duration of the service, if the contract were for a year. This, therefore, was a contract for a year, at so much a week, with liberty to quit at any time, except seed, hay, or harvest time, on giving a fortnight's notice: "but the power of giving notice makes no difference;" for it has been held, that an agreement to leave the service on giving a month's warning, did not defeat the settlement. Rex v. New Windsor, ante, 360.—Buller, J., said, a hiring for a week, requiring a fortnight's notice, was never heard of. Hiring at so much per week, and liberty to Rex v. Hampreston, 5 T. R. 205; 1 Nol. P. L. 367, 371. Order of removal from Gillingham to Hampreston, confirmed. Case: The pauper, part on a month's W. Gray, went to S. Hannam, a miller, of Gillingham, and agreed to serve him for 3s. 9d. per week; he considered himself obliged to serve his notice, is a general hiring. wages and notice. master on Sundays as well as other days; and accordingly served on Sixthly, Weekly Sundays. "They had a liberty of parting on a month's notice on either side." He received 1s. as earnest to bind the bargain. There was no mention of time. He continued under this contract about two years and a half, residing in Gillingham, in the house of his master. He then went to Tisbury to be inoculated, where he remained two months. Hannam then sent for him, and he was hired by him at the rate of 4s. per week. He continued to live with Hannam under the last contract for two years and a half, during which time he resided in his master's house in Gillingham.-Lord Kenyon, C. J. It is admitted, that since Rex v. New Windsor, the circumstance of the parties having it in their power to determine the service on giving notice, will not defeat the settlement where there is a contract for a year, and a year's service under it. (a) Neither could it be disputed, that a general hiring is not a hiring for a year. In the cases cited (b), there was something to shew that the parties did not intend that it should be a general hiring; one was as long as the master wanted a servant, another as long as the parties liked, where, without any notice, the contract might have been immediately determined. But "wherever the relation of master and servant is to continue for an indefinite time, and cannot be put an end to at the election of either party without notice, there the hiring must be understood to be a hiring for a year." If this were not a general hiring, those who disputed that proposition should have pointed out for what time it was to continue; and indeed it has been contended to be for a month, or a month added to a week, but there is no foundation for either: for if that were so, the pauper might have left the service at the end of the first month, or of the five weeks, without giving any notice at all; but there is no pretence for that; for by the terms of the contract, he was to give a month's notice before he could determine it. And this is distinguishable from Rex v. Bradninch, for there was a hiring for a stipulated time less than a year. In this case, independent of the first contract, the parties met again after an absence, and the pauper was a second time hired at 48. per week, the pauper insisting upon an increase of wages. This also was a general hiring, which in law is a hiring for a year. Ashurst J. On the second hiring an observation arises from the difference of expression, for there the pauper was hired at the rate of 4s. per week, words which clearly refer to the quantum of wages, and not to the duration of the contract.-Buller J. What Lord Kenyon said in Rex v. Birdbroke, has been misapplied. His lordship had disposed of the former part of the case, namely, that there was a hiring for a year; and then he added the power of giving notice makes no difference. (c) (a) The power to determine the contract by notice, makes it a conditional contract. See the cases under that title. (b) Rex v. Newton Toney, Rex v. Odiham, Rex v. Dedham, Rex v. Birdbroke. (c) The case of Rex v. Bradninch cannot be reconciled with these cases, and must be considered as overruled. It was as follows. Rex v. Bradninch, H. 10 G.3; Burr. S. C. 662; 2 Bott, 293; 1 Nol. P. L. 373. Removal from Bradninch to Shobrooke, confirmed. Case: The pauper came to S. Ruddall, in Crediton, and agreed to live with him by the week, at two shillings and sixpence per week, and to part at a fortnight's or month's notice. The pauper being asked "how long he intended to live with Ruddall," replied, "he did not know, but as long as they liked." The pauper lived with Ruddall for eight years, under that agreement; the pauper and master being Rex v. Great Yarmouth, 5 M. & S. 114. Case: The pauper let himself by the week to a journeyman baker, and was to have 5s. per week wages, food, and lodging, and either party to be at liberty to part, by giving a month's notice. The pauper stated that he let himself by the week, but nothing passed as to his being hired by the week, except that he was to have 5s. a week wages. He served three years and a quarter, and quitted upon receiving a month's notice. His wages were paid at the end of a week, fortnight, or month, as he wanted them.-Lord Ellenborough. I do not think any material argument arises from its being first found that the pauper let himself for a week, because it is explained by the statement that follows. The facts are to be taken together, without reference to the order in which they are found; and the sessions have concluded that the hiring was indefinite. The first fact is, that the pauper let himself by the week. But to discover if this was intended as the measure of time for which the service was to endure, we must look to the context and see how the contract was determinable. We find then that either party was at liberty to determine it by giving a month's notice. Can any one say that it is a weekly hiring, when the parties were not at liberty to part without a month's notice? I cannot say so. What then is the effect of a month's notice? It does not follow from thence that it was a monthly hiring, or for any definite number of days. Wherefore as there is no limited duration to be assigned for the service, the law implies that it is for a year. This mode of considering the subject is strengthened by adverting to the fact, that the pauper stated that nothing passed as to his being hired by the week, except that he was to have weekly wages. It is therefore, in common sense and intendment, a hiring of which no certain portion of time can be predicted for its duration, and is consequently a general hiring.-Bayley, J. The sessions could not mean to find that there was a distinct weekly hiring, and upon that, to submit that same question to us.-Abbott, J., concurred.-Holroyd, J., said, This is not a hiring for a month, for then it would be determinable only at the completion of each month's service, whereas this might have been determined at the expiration of a month's notice, without regard to whether it expired at the month's end or not. (a) Rex v. St. Andrew, Pershore, 8 B. & C. 679. The pauper was hired as a horsekeeper, at 11. a week. The terms were a month's warning or a month's wages. No further mention of time.-Bayley, J. The sessions had no premises to warrant their conclusion. The stipulation for a month's wages or month's warning, rebuts the presumption of a weekly hiring. It was thence manifest that it was intended that the service should continue for a longer period than a week. It then became a hiring unlimited in duration, and the law implies that that is a hiring for a year. Order of sessions quashed. Seventhly, Hiring by the Job. (b) If a pauper is hired to do a particular job, which may occupy him a year, it is not a hiring for a year; but it may be a hiring for a year, though the wages are regulated according to the quantity of work done. Rex v. King's Norton, 2 Stra. 1139; 2 Sess. Ca. 146; 1 Nol. P. L. 378. M. Calcut was hired for a year to spin yarn at 18d. a stone, and was to provide herself with victuals and lodging. She spun the whole year, and boarded and lodged at her master's, allowing 2s. a-week for the same.-By the Court: This case hath all the requisites of the statute, and is a good settlement. For in fact here is a hiring and a service for a year. And whether she was paid by the year, or by the quantity of her work, was immaterial. See Rex v. Byker, post, 358. Rex v. Birmingham, Doug. 333; Cald. 77; 2 Bott, 217; 1 Nol. P. L. 342, 376, 378, 404, 405. Case: T. Baker was hired in Birmingham, by (a) Beeston v. Colyer, 4 Bing. 209. The plaintiff became a clerk to defendant in March, 1793. In 1811, his salary was paid quarterly, for the last six years, up to 1826, monthly. He was dismissed in December, and the Court held that this was a general hiring. (b) See division of the subject, ante, 319. J. Jennings, a wood-screw-maker, for a year, "good earn, good hire," to work for him and no other master, to make screws at so much per gross: and this was all that passed. Persons are often hired at Birmingham under the terms "good earn, good hire," the meaning of which is, that their pay is to depend upon their work. Baker had no wages; he was to have what he got. His master had no business but that of a screw-maker. He was to work in his master's shop, and do no other work. He served a year under the hiring, and sometimes lodged with his master, sometimes in another house; when he lodged with his master he paid him for it. He sometimes absented himself to drink or play, for a week or a fortnight, and never asked his master's leave for such absence. His master, on his return, was angry, and checked him, but always received him again. During such absence he never worked for his master or any other person. Baker had said to his master he could not compel him to work, and the master thought he had no right to compel him. It is generally understood at Birmingham, that persons hiring to work in shops, under the above terms, may occasionally absent themselves, but cannot work for another master. The Court, after discussing all the cases, considered that this was a good hiring and service. Rex v. Woodhurst, H. 58 Geo. III.; I B. & A. 325. Removal from St. Ives to Woodhurst. Order confirmed. Case: In 1809, the pauper was hired by W. Margetts of St. Ives, brickmaker, to work in St. Ives under a written agreement, which Margetts states to be lost, and to be as follows: "I G. H. have this day agreed to serve W. M. as a brickmaker, from Michaelmas to Michaelmas again. G. H. engages to make 70,000 bricks at so much for digging and turning, so much for moulding and making, and so much for running to the kiln." Nothing was said as to the time he was to begin to dig; he probably began in November, and then worked on the kilns under that contract, not having finished his 70,000 bricks till after Michaelmas following. As soon as the pauper had made the 70,000 bricks, according to his contract, his master had no control over him, and he might go where he pleased, even if it was a month before Michaelmas, and if he stopped and made more than 70,000 bricks he was to be paid for them, and the master could set him to no other work than brick-making. This was the custom of the kilns. After argument, Lord Ellenborough, C. J., entertained no doubt there was not a contract which, properly speaking, had relation to time. The pauper engages to serve only until a particular job be done if the bricks were made before the year expired, his service would terminate. So that unless he finished the last brick exactly at the year's end, which would be very improbable, he would not serve for a year. It is therefore only a contract for that individual job, and the introduction of time into the agreement is wholly irrelevant. Order of sessions confirmed. Rex v. St. Peter's, Dorchester, 1 Bla. Rep. 443. The pauper, from six years old, was maintained and employed by his step-father, as a button maker, without wages or contract. At the age of sixteen he went away to seek more advantageous employment, but returned soon after, and agreed with his step-father, to live with him in his house, and to be paid 1s. for every gross for what he should earn at button-making, deducting 5s. a-week for his board. Under this agreement he lived with him four or five years. By Lord Mansfield, C. J. This is the case of a workman hired to work by the piece. It is not like any of the cases where there was a hiring for a year. Indeed, hiring in general and indefinitely gives a presumption of a hiring for a year, where the nature of the service and subsequent facts concur to render it probable that it was so meant. But the nature of the present service is quite otherwise. It is very clear in this case, that there was no hiring for a year, express or implied. In Rex v. Alton, Cald. 424; the pauper agreed with his uncle for a year. During the year, the pauper, being idle, he agreed to work by the piece, and find himself board, &c. The Court held the services would connect, (see post,) and it was also added, "that the second agreement being general, would be equivalent to a hiring for a year." Sed quere. Seventhiy, Of hiring by the job. screws at so much per gross, Hiring to make a of bricks gives limited quantity no settlement. A person's agreehis step father, to work with him, and to be paid at his work, is not a general hiring for a year. ing to live with a certain rate for |