Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

1827.

The King

v.

WHITNASH.

farmer, wanting reapers, should see Irish labourers passing through his village on a Sunday, may he not stop them and hire them ? Must he lose his chance of obtaining reapers ?] The words of the act are general, and comprehend every person exercising any worldly labour. The words worldly labour ought to be read disjunctively from the rest of the sentence; and the act ought to be so construed as to give it the most general and extensive operation possible.

Bayley, J.--I agree that this act of parliament ought to receive such a construction as is consonant with the object which the legislature had in view in passing it, and calculated to promote the attainment of that object; but I do not agree that it should be construed in so unlimited a mode, as to render every description of work on a Sunday, illegal. It enumerates certain persons to whom it is intended to apply, namely, tradesmen, artificers, workmen, and labourers. If the prohibition was intended to embrace all descriptions of persons, and every species of business, why was this enumeration of particular classes of persons adopted, when the simple expression, “ no person whatsoever," would so clearly and unequivocally have explained the meaning ? I cannot help thinking, that if the provision had been intended to be general, the language in which it was framed, would have been general also. But, it has been urged that the words, “worldly labour” in the act, ought to be read disjunctively from the rest of the sentence in which they are found ; and that, being so read, they will have reference to cases where the contract has been made by parties not exercising their ordinary calling. I cannot adopt that construction of the act; I think the act was meant to apply only to cases where one, or both, of the contracting parties was acting in his ordinary calling, or business, as it may be more properly termed.

I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion, that the exercise of every descrip

1827.

The King

v. WHITNASH.

tion of business was intended to be prohibited. The real interests of religion do not require such strictness. It is not necessary that every hour of every Sunday should be dedicated to acts of devotion. I can conceive that a man may act very laudably in making a bargain like this on a Sunday, without at all interfering with his religious duties. I think a man, by so doing, may materially add to the comforts, and diminish the labours of his servants, and in so doing be in the performance of a duty, instead of a crime. If so, there can be nothing militating against the interests of religion, or, consequently, against the object for the furtherance of which this statute was passed, in the transaction between the pauper and his master. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the act of hiring a servant by a master, or of contracting for a service by a labourer, on a Sunday, is not an offence within the letter or spirit of this act of parliament, and consequently that the pauper, having served his due time, under a legal hiring, has acquired a settlement. Surely it would be absurd to say that such an act, which can be performed only once in the course of a year, is a part of the ordinary calling of either the master or the servant.

HOLROYD, J.-I think the hiring in this case was a lawful hiriŋg, and that due service under it conferred a settlement on the pauper. The object of the statute was to prohibit persons from carrying on their ordinary business and calling on the sabbath. It is a penal act, and, therefore, is not to be construed so as to give it an operation extending beyond the clear and necessary import of its words. Construing it according to that rule, it seems to me that the business, or work, or labour of persons, performing it in the course of their ordinary calling, was all that was intended to be prohibited; and that the contract entered into between these parties, does not come within that prohibition. If the servant had gone to plough, or the master had made a sale of corn, upon the

1827.

Sunday, each would have been exercising his ordinary calling, and would have come within the purview of the statute ; but the one hiring a servant, and the other letting himself to a service, does not appear to me to come within that description, or to be an offence against the provisions of the act. I am, therefore, of opinion, that the pauper was lawfully hired.

The KING

V. WUTNASH.

LITTLEDALE, J.-I am clearly of opinion that there was a lawful hiring in this case. I have no doubt that the words “ ordinary calling,” in the act, were meant to extend to all the preceding words in the sentence, and ought to be read in connection with the words, “ worldly labour." I think this is evident from the context. Tradesmen, artificers, workmen, and labourers, are specifically named, and the other persons mentioned, must be taken to be other persons, ejusdem generis. If so, the act cannot extend to a case like the present. Nor ought it. Such an act, penal in its consequences, ought not to be so construed as to have an operation beyond its fair meaning. The act of hiring on the one side, or of letting on the other, was not, in my opinion, an exercise of the ordinary calling of either of the parties, in the fair sense of those words; nor was there any work, business, or labour, in it.

Order of Sessions confirmed (a).

(a) See Rer v. Brotherton, 2 London, on a Sunday evening, the Stra. 702; Drury v. Defontaine, plaintiff having booked a place 1 Taunt. 135; Blorsome v. Wil- and paid a shilling earnest at the liams, 5 D. & R. 82: 3 B. & C. defendant's booking office. The 232; Sandiman v. Bridge, K. B. defence set up was, that the conTrinity term, 1827. That was an tract being made on a Sunday, action against a stage coach pro- was void by the statutes 3 Car. 1, prietor, to recover the expences c. 1, and 29 Car. 2, c. 7, and thereincurred by the plaintiff in conse- fore that the action was not mainquence of the defendant neglecting tainable. The plaintiff had a verto convey him from Clapton to dict, and a rule for entering a

1827.

nonsuit was afterwards granted, within the scope of either of those
after hearing which argued, the statutes, and that the action was
whole Court were of opinion that maintainable. Ed. MSS.
stage coach proprietors were not

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

must be ap

bands and

seals,"

The King v. The Inhabitants of STOKE DAMAREL. Where an

JANE COLEMAN was removed by an order of two bound out of a justices from the parish of Stoke Damarel, to the parish parish by his of Charles, in the borough of Plymouth, both in the county father, but part of the ex

of Devon; and upon appeal, the sessions quashed the penses is paid order, subject to the opinion of this Court upon the followout of the parochial funds, ing case. the indenture

The pauper, Jane Coleman, daughter of Thomas Coleproved by two man, of the parish of Stoke Damarel, was bound apprenjustices,

tice on the 16th October, 1823, to Jeremiah Ellis, of the « under their

parish of Charles, in the borough of Plymouth. The indenant to 56 Geo. ture which was on a one pound stamp, was executed by 3, c. 139, s.11, the master, the pauper, and her father, and the following or it will be void ab initio, allowance was written on the margin :-"Devon, to wit. and service

We, whose names are underwritten, justices of the peace under it will confer no set- for the county aforesaid, whereof one is of the quorum, do tlement.

consent to and allow the putting forth Jane Coleman an apprentice, according to the inteut and meaning of this indenture.” This allowance was signed by E. Lockyer and S. Pym, two justices of the peace for the county of Devon, but was not under seal. Upon the binding of the said Jane Coleman by the said indenture, an expense was incurred by the public parochial funds of the said parish of Stoke Damarel, that is to say, nine pounds, being the consideration-money mentioned in the said indenture, and a further sum, being the costs and charges attending the binding. No notice was given to the overseers of the poor of the parish of Charles, or the guardians of the poor

of Plymouth, or to any of them, of the intention to bind out such apprentice, previously to the binding. Plymouth is a

1827.

The King

borough situate in the county of Devon, having justices who have exclusive jurisdiction therein. The pauper resided in service under the indenture with the said Jeremiah Ellis, from the date of the said indenture until she was discharged from further service under it on the 3d July, 1826, by two magistrates (a).

STOKE DAMA

REL.

Nolan and Praed, in support of the order of sessions. The question in this case will depend upon the construction to be given to certain sections of the statute 56 Geo. 3, . c. 139, namely, the first, second, fifth, and eleventh (6).

(a) The following were added to tice by the overseers of the poor the special case, as the points for of any parish, &c., such child shall argument. “The counsel in sup- be carried before two justices of port of the order of sessions will the county, &c., wherein such contend that the circumstances parish, &c., shall be situate ; who stated, bring this case either within shall inquire into the propriety of the provisions of the second, and binding such child apprentice to fifth sections of the 56 Geo. 3, the person to whom it shall be

proC. 139, or within those of the 11th posed by such overseers to bind section of that act. That on the such child, &c.; and if such jusfirst supposition, no settlement has tices shall upon such examination been gained in the parish of and inquiry, think it proper that Charles, because no notice was

such child should be bound

apgiven to the overseers of that parish prentice to such person, such jusprevious to the binding: and on tices shall make an order declaring the second, because the justices'

that such person is a fit person to approval of the indenture was whom such child may be properly signed only, and not sealed by bound as apprentice; and shall them.” “The counsel against the

therefore order that the overseers order of sessions will contend that of the place to which such child the circumstances stated in the shall belong, shall be at liberty to case do not bring it within the pro

bind such child apprentice accordvisions of the first, second, or fifth ingly; which order shall be desection of the 56 Geo. 3, c. 139,

livered to such overseers as the or within the provisions of the

warrant for binding such child ap11th section of that act; but that prentice as aforesaid ; and such if it falls within the last section,

order shall be referred to by the the provisions of that section are date thereof, and the names of the only directory, at least so far as said justices in the indenture of relates to the requisition of a set

apprenticeship of such child; and tlement.'

after such order shall have been (b) Sect. 1, provides that“ before 'made, such justices thall sign their any child shall be bound appren- allowance of such indenture of ap

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »