Page images
PDF
EPUB

case the contract was absolutely dissolved: the master insiste upon turning away the servant,and paid him down all his wage that were due; the consent on the other side is by taking the m ney up; then how did he come back again? It was upon th request of the master; there is nothing by which the absenc can be explained. The meaning of "purging an absence" where the act itself is doubtful. 1 Term Rep. 101.

[ocr errors]

So in the K. v. Grantham, Tr. 30 Geo. 3, the pauper w hired to serve for a year in Allington, and entered upon h service, and continued therein about six weeks, when, with master's permission, he went to assist his father, who was i and with whom he staid thirteen weeks, he then returned, consequence of a warrant having been obtained against him the instance of his master, into his service, under the origi contract, and continued therein until Sunday evening, thr days before the expiration of the year; when his master ca home in liquor, abused him, threw him down, and afterwa turned him out of doors. The pauper slept at his fathe that night in Allington, and the next morning his mas would have had him return to his service, and stay the mainder of the year; but the pauper refused going into 'master's service again, and threatened that unless he paid f the whole of his wages, he would complain of the ill us he had received to a magistrate.' The master then agreed pay him his full year's wages. deducting for the thirteen we he was with his father in his illness, which the pauper to and then left his master's service, contrary to the express 6 quest of his master.'-By lord Kenyon Ch. J. The circu stance stated in the case, that this transaction happened o three days before the end of the year, might have led us at fi to suppose that there was some fraud intended on the pari the master; but none is stated. It has been said, and rig ly so, that an actual service is not necessary, for that a e structive service is sufficient; but the question here Whether we can say that there was a constructive service the whole year? aud whether the relation of master and s vant subsisted during that time? If the absence be for a r sonable cause, it is immaterial whether that absence be at beginning, the middle, or the end of the year. And it has b nrged, that this was an absence for a reasonable cause, on count of the ill treatment of the master. But here there was animus revertendi, which distinguishes the present from élass of cases alluded to. When the servant was ill-used, tho he could not have left the service without his masters conse or without applying to a magistrate to be discharged on t account, yet the master did consent to the servant's leav him, and both parties agreed to put an end to the c tract. If the master had afterwards complained of the paup not serving him for those three days, the latter might h answered by saying that the contract was dissolved.

An

is being absolutely put an end to only three days before the expiration of the year, will not defeat the settlement, what line can be drawn with respect to the time of the service which is neessary to give a settlement? Tone day or three days may be dispensed with, any other time may be equally so. In some ces indeed where it has been equivocal what the transaction really was, and the servant has paused and considered whether be would absolutely quit the service or not, other circumstances have been admitted to explain the absence: but here wai no suspence, no locus penitentiæ; for both the master and the servant agreed to put an end to the service. The mas. er wished to turn away the servant, though unwarrantably; and though the latter was not bound by such ill-treatment, he afterwards consented to dissolve the contract.-Ashhurst J. concurred Term Rep. 754.

So where a pauper was hired for a year in Upwell, and continued in his master's service, until within fifteen or sixteen days before the expiration of the year, when the master kicked and beat her: the pauper in conjunction with her father con plaining of this ill treatment, required to be discharged from hervinder a threat of applying to a magistrate for redress onacoat of the assault; the master then paid her the whole wages, and told her she might serve the remainder of the but the paper refused so to do, and immediately left the

the sessions had confirmed an order of two justices the removal of the pauper to Upwell. BUT BY THE COURT, en question, for according to the fact stated, it must dered as an agreement by both parties to put an end to tract several days before the expiration of the year, and lly the pauper had gained no settlement in Upwell. : Toy Box 438.

SK. v. King's Pyon, Mic. Ter. 44 Geo. 3, the 4 hired to a person of King's Pyon for a year, at the

55s. and (if she behaved well) two pounds of. she served her master for about eight months, when a We happened with her master about some stockings that t, and the dismissed her from his service: she then to magistrate, and was desirous of continuing in her but her master refused; and the magistrate ordered ake her back into his service, or pay her the whole of g; but be refused to take her again, and paid her the other wages, but not the wool: the pauper after she Fighter wages, offered herself as a servant to several per

CONTENDED that the pauper's master, by paying though he did not receive her again, dispensed with der of her service. BUT BY THE COURT, We are

to say whether the magistrate had or nad not le discharge the servant from her service: it is enough ed an option to the master to take the servant yher the whole of her wages: now the master took ⚫ given him by the magistrate, and chusing to pay

[ocr errors]

N

her the whole year's wages then, rather than to take her bac again; this was purchasing the dissolution of the contra on his part: which she assented to by taking the money, ar tendering herself to others as a servant. 4 East's Rep. 351. Smith's Rep. 55.

So in the K. v. Rushall, Tr. Ter. 26 Geo. 3, the mother of t pauper being desired to look out for a place for her daughte who was settled at Wiston, applied to Mrs. Perk, of Rusha some time before Old Michaelmas-day, who informed her that! would give her daughter the same wages as her other servan and would wait till she came, but the mother made no ab lute agreement for her daughter: the daughter arrived Rushall about a week after Old Michaelmas-day, when u] Mr. Perk's application to her to know if she liked to co into his service, she went there and then it was, for they time agreed between Mrs. Perk and her, that the wages shc be ten guincas for the year, and a guinea for tea, with libe which was not before mentioned, of parting at a month's w or a month's warning: this was on the 18th of October she then went to work, and continued in Mrs. Perk's ser until Old Michaelmas day following, about five weeks fore that time, she gave her mistress notice that she sh quit her service at the next Old Michaelmas-day :' on that she was paid her whole year's wages; but was told by mistress that she wanted a week of serving out her year: pauper said she was willing to stay another week; but mistress replied that it did not signify, as she had got an servant in her place who was then in the house : she then le house, and never returned into the service afterwardsthese facts THE SESSIONS were of opinion that the paupe settled at Rushall. BUT by lord Ellenborough, Ch. J. can be no doubt upon this statement that both parties agre put an end to the contract before the end of the year: servant gave above a month's warning to quit at Old Mi mas, which she had a right to do, and the mistress acc the warning, and both parties acted upon it; and this pears was in fact, before the end of the year, whatever the vant might have supposed, when she gave the warning: no rule, which the court has laid down as the test, whether t cumstances attending the departure of a servant before th of the year, amount to a dissolution of the contract, or on a dispensation of the service, is whether the master has the afterwards of compelling the continuance of the service? if h not, there is an end of the contract; if he have but chused pense with it, it is a dispensation: if after this, any perso harboured the servant, when the mistress desired her se could she have maintained an action for it? Certainly and that is a fair test, that the relation of master and s had ceased to exist.-Grose, J. the hiring in this case di commence till the 18th of October, and consequently th would not expire till the 18th of October following; th

tant quitted a week before the end of the year, according to the notice: it is therefore clear, that there was not a year's service in Ruthall, and consequently no settlement gained by the pauper there. Lawrence J. and Le Blanc, J. were clearly of opinion also, that there was no settlement. 7 East's Rep.

471.

So in the K. v. Leigh, Tr. Ter. 46 Geo. 2, the pauper had been removed with his wife and family from Leigh to Clifton apon Teame, and the sessions upon appeal quashed the order, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: “The pauper being settled in Clifton upon Teame, hired himself on the 31st of March as a servant in husbandry to a person of the parish of Lulsley: five days before the end of the year, viz. on Mar, 25, he absented himself by leave, one day from his master's service, to look out for another place, and on his return at 3 in the morning of the 26th, the master on a trivial pretence illfounded, said he should not stay any longer in his service, and offered him a trifle less than his whole wages; which the servant refused, but was then ready to have accepted his whole wages, though he would rather have stayed out his year; and immediately applied to a magistrate to oblige his master cither to pay him the whole or receive him into his service for the re mainder of the year, and on the next day on the 27th the magistrate verbally directed half a crown, to be deducted from the year's wages, and retained by the master: on the same 27th, the pauper hired himself to another master at Broadway; and on that day entered upon such service; about a week after the pauper went to his former master for his wages who paid him the whole. BY THE Count,it cannot be said that there was a constant refusal of the servant to put an end to the contract, when he actually entered into another service, before the time when his first contract would have expired: that is an insuperable difficulty: that he did not receive his wages before the year was out cannot vary the case; for he would have received them at the time, if offered: the case of King's Pyon is almost in terms the same as the present; the magistrate in both cases was ma le a sort of arbitrator between the parties, and both parties acquiesced in putting an end to the contract of master and servant. 7 East's Rep. 539.

And in the K. v. St. Peter of Mancroft in Norwich, Ill. Ter. 40 Geo. 3, where, before the end of the year, the mistress asked the servant whether she chose to go away on a certain day (within the year), assigning as a reason, that she had hired a new servant, who wished to come to her then, and the ser vant said it was immaterial to her, and agreed to go then, which she did; the COURT thought that was evidence sufficient to find an agreement to dissolve the contract before the end of the year. 8 Term Rep. 477.

And if a servant hired for a year leaves his master's service a few days before the end of the year in consequence of illness, and then settles for his wages, taking only so much as is then

1

due, this is a dissolution of the contract, and he gains no set tlement by his hiring and service :-Thus in the K v. the In habitants of Whittlebury, Mic. Ter. 36 Geo. 3, two justice removed the pauper and his family from Whittlebury to Paul pury ---THE SESSIONS, on appeal, being of opinion, on the fac hereafter stated, that the contract hereafter mentioned, betwee the pauper and his master, was dissolved before the end of th year, quashed the order of removal, subject to the opinion the court, on the following case :---" The pauper was born Whittlebury, and in the year 1783 he was hired by a person Paulspury, to serve him from Michaelmas in that year, ur the Michaelmas following, at the wages of 50s. He enter into the service, and continued with his master until within days of the end of the year when he went to Towcester stat to seck for a service for the next year. While he was there was suddenly taken ill of a fever, which continued for weeks; and he was deprived of his senses for some part off time. He went from Towcester statute to his mother; neither he nor his mother having any money to maintain under his illness, he that night desired his mother to go to master for his money, and to bring away his clothes; the ther went the next day, and at her return she brought his ney all but 1s. (which she told him his master had stopped the remainder of the year), and gave it to him; together his clothes, with which he was satisfied; and he thought | self at liberty to hire himself to another master, if he had well enough."-By lord Kenyon, Ch. J. I think the conclu that the justices have drawn is the right one. There is no do but that the parties may put an end to the contract during part of the year either at the beginning, in the middle, or ot day before the end of it; and if they do, the servant gair settlement, because the act of parliament requires that the lation of master and servant should continue during a w year. It is not necessary here to decide whether in every cas receipt of wages before the expiration of the year puts an to the contract, or whether, if a servant be taken ill d the year, the master can of his own authority discharge and put an end to the contract, or whether in such a case tices may put an end to the contract; but it is stated in case, that 5 days before the end of the year (and it is i terial whether that happened 5 months or 5 days before year expired) the pauper sent his mother to his master fo money; the latter paid the wages stipulated for the whole except one shilling, which he deducted, because the year's service was not performed. As far, therefore, a master had the power, he did put an end to the contract b the end of the year; he had no right to deduct the shilling on the ground that the pauper did not continue a so until the end of the year. Then what was the conduct servant? He received this money saying that he was sati and it also appears that he thought he might have hired self to another master before the end of the year; one

« PreviousContinue »