about the getting of clay, such clay being intended to be used and applied by the defendants for the purpose of making and preparing therewith of bricks, and the plaintiff was during the time last aforesaid engaged and employed by the defendants in the said occupation of and in and about the getting of clay, such clay being intended to be used and applied by the defendants for the purpose aforesaid; and the defendants, during the time last aforesaid, employed and were the employers of the plaintiff in the said occupation of and in and about the getting of clay, such clay being intended to be used and applied by the defendants as aforesaid. And the plaintiff further says, that this action was brought and commenced after the passing of the said act of Parliament, and was so brought and commenced by the plaintiff, as such workman and labourer as aforesaid, against the defendants, his employers as aforesaid, for the recovery of divers sums of money due to the plaintiff as such workman and labourer as aforesaid, as the wages of his labour in the said occupation hereinbefore mentioned. And the plaintiff further says, that the said goods in the said plea mentioned, for the price and value of which the said sum of 16l. 8s., parcel &c., is claimed to be due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendants, and for and in respect of which price and value the defendants have pleaded the said set-off, were and are certain goods which the defendants sold to the plaintiff, and delivered and supplied to him, and which the plaintiff had and received, on several days and times during and whilst the plaintiff was in the employment of the defendants as such workman and labourer, and engaged and employed by the defendants as such workman and labourer, in the said occupation of and in and about the getting of clay intended to be used and applied as aforesaid, and whilst the defendants so employed and were the employers of the plaintiff in the said occupation of and in and about the getting of clay in 1848. RILEY v. WARDEN. 1848. RILEY v. WARDEN. tended to be used and applied for the purposes aforesaid by the defendants, to wit, on &c., and on divers other days and times between that day and the said &c., and before the commencement of this suit; and the plaintiff says, that the said goods were so sold to the plaintiff as aforesaid, and delivered and supplied to the plaintiff, and by him had and received, as for and on account of his wages, and in reward for his labour as such workman and labourer as aforesaid, of and in and about the getting of clay, as aforesaid, by him done and performed whilst in the employ of the defendants as aforesaid, and not otherwise, contrary to the form and effect of the said statute in such case made and provided. Verification. Rejoinder, that the plaintiff was not, at the time of the sale and delivery by the defendants to the plaintiff of the said goods in the said second plea mentioned, or of any of them, or of any part thereof, a workman or labourer engaged or employed by the defendants, or either of them, in the said occupation of, in, or about the getting of clay, modo et formâ, concluding to the country; upon which rejoinder issue was joined. At the trial of the cause, before Coleridge, J., at the last Summer Assizes at Gloucester, it appeared that the plaintiff had done the work, which was the subject of the action, as a sub-contractor under the defendants, who had contracted to make a certain portion of the Oxford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Railway. The defendants had divided the contract they had taken into several smaller portions, one of which the plaintiff had taken from them, at a certain sum per cubic yard. The plaintiff engaged eight or nine men to work with him. Tickets for goods were supplied by the defendants to the plaintiff, who gave them to his men as payment. There was evidence to shew that the clay which was obtained from the cuttings was applied to the purpose of making bricks. Coleridge, J., told the jury, that, if the object was to save the clay for the purpose of making bricks, he was of opinion that that part of the case would be within the act; but he was also of opinion, that the plaintiff was not a labourer or workman within the act, which he thought did not apply as between contractor and sub-contractor, and that the mere fact of the plaintiff joining in the work did not make any difference. He therefore directed the jury to find a verdict for the defendants on the plea of set-off, with leave reserved to the plaintiff to move to enter a verdict for 161. 8s. Accordingly, in Michaelmas Term last, Greaves having obtained a rule, W. H. Cooke now shewed cause.-The substantial question is, whether the defendants are entitled to the benefit of their set-off, or whether they are deprived of it by virtue of this act, 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 37 (a). Under the circum (a) Sect. 1, after reciting that it is necessary to prohibit payment in certain trades, of wages in goods, or otherwise than in the current coin of the realm," enacts, "that in all contracts hereafter to be made, for the hiring of any artificer in any of the trades hereinafter enumerated, or for the performance by any artificer of any labour in any of the said trades, the wages of such artificer shall be made payable in the current coin of this realm only, and not otherwise; and that, if in any such contract the whole or any part of such wages shall be made payable in any manner other than in the current coin aforesaid, such contract shall be and is hereby declared illegal, null, and void." Sect. 3 enacts, that "the entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to any artificer in any of By sect. 4, artificers may re- Sect. 5 enacts, that, "in any action, suit, or other proceeding to be hereafter brought or commenced by any such artificer as aforesaid, against his employer for 1848. RILEY v. WARDEN. 1848. RILEY v. WARDEN. stances of the present case, the plaintiff is clearly not a workman or labourer within the true meaning of that act. the recovery of any sum of money due to any such artificer as the wages of his labour, in any of the trades hereinafter enumerated, the defendant shall not be allowed to make any set-off, nor to claim any reduction of the plaintiff's demand by reason or in respect of any goods, wares, or merchandise had or received by the plaintiff as or on account of his wages or in reward for his labour, or by reason or in respect of any goods, wares, or merchandise, sold, delivered, or supplied to such artificer, at any shop or warehouse kept by or belonging to such employer, or in the profits of which such employer shall have any share or interest." Sect. 19 enacts, "that nothing herein contained shall extend to any artificer, workman, or labourer, or any person engaged or employed in any manufacture, trade, or occupation, excepting only artificers, workmen, labourers, and other persons employed in the several manufactures, trades, and occupations following; (that is to say), in or about the working, casting, converting, or manufacturing of iron or steel, or any parts, branches, or processes thereof; or in or about the working or cutting of any mines of coal, ironstone, limestone, salt rock; or in or about the working or getting of stone, slate, or clay," &c. Sect. 25 enacts, that, "in the meaning and for the purposes of this act, all workmen, labourers, and other persons in any manner engaged in the performance of any work, employment, or operation, of what nature soever, in or about the several trades and occupations aforesaid, shall be and be deemed 'artificers;' and that, within the meaning and purposes aforesaid, all masters, bailiffs, foremen, managers, clerks, and other persons engaged in the hiring, employment, or superintendence of the labour of any such artificers, shall be deemed to be 'employers;' and that, within the meaning and for the purposes of this act, any money or other thing had or contracted to be paid, delivered, or given as a recompense, reward, or remuneration for any labour done or to be done, whether within a certain time or to a certain amount, or for a time or an amount uncertain, shall be deemed and taken to be the 'wages' of such labour; and that, within the meaning and for the purposes aforesaid, any agreement, understanding, device, contrivance, collusion, or arrangement whatsoever, on the subject of wages, whether written or oral, whether direct or indirect, to which the employer and artificer are parties or are assenting, or by which they are mutually bound to each other, or whereby either of them shall have endeavoured to impose an obligation on the other of them, shall be and be deemed a 'contract.'" The mere fact of his joining in the work does not bring him within it. (He was then stopped by the Court.) Greaves and Keating, in support of the rule.-This act is couched in very comprehensive language, and is in its nature remedial. It is therefore right that it should receive a liberal construction. The replication is framed under the 5th section. The question is, whether the plaintiff is a workman or labourer within the true meaning of the act. Now the language of the 25th section is as large and comprehensive as possible; the words are, "all workmen, labourers, and other persons in any manner engaged in the performance of any work, employment or operation, of what nature soever, in or about the several trades and occupations aforesaid, shall be, and be deemed 'artificers."" Any workman engaged in any work named in the act is within its provisions, and the plaintiff is not to be deprived of the benefit of it, because he has employed other labourers to join him, and assist him in doing the work. The only case which has much bearing upon this subject is that of Lowther v. Lord Radnor (a), which arose under the statute 20 Geo. 2, c. 19, by which magistrates had jurisdiction to determine differences between masters and servants in husbandry, artificers, &c., "and other labourers" employed for any certain time, or in any other manner respecting wages within certain sums. It was there said by Dampier in argument, that "It is not inconsistent with the condition of a labourer that he should contract to do the work by the piece, or great, and therefore should employ another labourer under him; many important operations in husbandry are performed in this manner;" and Lord Ellenborough, in delivering the judgment of the Court, says, "This complaint must be taken to be true in the terms of VOL. II. (a) 8 East, 113. F EXCH. 1848. RILEY v. WARDEN. |