Ashmore Appellant v Horton and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 November 1859 |
| Date | 19 November 1859 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 136
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 29 L. M. C. 13; 6 Jur. N. S. 15; L. T. 58.
ashmore, Appellant, against hokton and another, Respondents. Saturday, November 19th, 1869. Stat. 4 G. 4, c, 34, s. 3, enacts "that if any" "artificer" "shall contract with any person or persons whomsoever, to serve him, her or them for any time or times whatsoever, or in any other manner, and shall not enter into or commence bis or her service according to his or her contract (such contract being in writing, and signed by the contracting parties)" the offender may be committed by a justice to the House of Correction for a term of not more than three months' imprisonment, with hard labour, and an abatement of wages.-On 5th July, 1858, A., an artificer, made a written contract with P., signed by A. and P., to serve P. for five years from that date, and then entered into the service. On 15th October, 1858, A., so being in P.'s service, made a written contract with H., signed by them both, to serve H. for five years from this latter date. On the next day A. refused to enter into H.'s service, giving ae a reason that P. insisted on his remaining in his (P.'s) service.-Held, that A. could not be convicted, under the above Act, for not entering into H.'s service, if he bad a lawful excuse for not entering into it; and that the fact that he could not do so without committing the criminal offence of absenting himself from P.'s service was sufficient to constitute such an excuse. [S. C. 29 L. J. M. C. 13; 6 Jur. N. S. 15; 1 L. T. 58.] This was a case stated by justices, under stat. 20 & 21 Viet. c. 43, and was substantially as follows. 361} The appellant, William Ashmore, was convicted, on 2nd January, 1859, on the complaint of the respondents, for not entering into their service, pursuant to a written agreement, for that he, being an artificer, did on 15th May, 1858, by a certain contract in writing, signed by him and the respondents, Joshua and William Horton, contract with them to serve them for five years from the said date, as a boiler and gas holder maker, but that he had not entered and did not enter into or commence 2 a.* EL. Ml. A8HMORE V. HORTON 137 his said service according to bis said contract; and the justices adjudged him to be imprisoned for fourteen days, and that a proportionate part of his wages should be abated during bis imprisonment. The appellant, on 15th May, 1858, signed an agreement, which so far as it is material, waa as follows. " I hereby engage and agree to work for and serve Messrs. W. & J. Horton " (the respondents) "in the trade of a boiler and gasholder, for the terra of five years, at the weekly wages of &c. "As witness my hand, this 15th May, 1858." This agreement was not signed by the respondents until after its date, and there was no proof on what day it was signed by them; but, on 15th October, 1858, the following memorandum was written across the former agreement, and signed by both partiet. " We, the undersigned J. and W. Horton, agree with the undersigned W. Ashmore to hire htm from this day for five years, on the terms and conditions of the within document, and I, W. Ashmore, also agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willett, Appellant v Boote and another, Respondents
...but-there must be an absenting without lawful excuse, and with a guilty intention: Eider v. Wood (2 El. & El. 338), Ashmore \. Urn ton (2 El. & El 360) The leaving under a mistaken notion of a right to leave is no offence. Here the appellant believed thai he had a reasonable excuse for leav......