John Hart and William Hodge, Appellants. - Sir William Follett-A. McNeill; John Frame and Company, Respondents. - Dr. Lushington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 June 1839 |
| Date | 18 June 1839 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 9 E.R. 218
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND.
Mews' Dig. xiii. 1467, 1470. S.C., 6 Cl. and F., 193; 3 Jur., 547; 7 Scots, R.R., 241. Distinguished in Smith v. Grant, 1838, 20 Dunlop, 1078. Commented on in Purves v. Landell, 1845, 12 Cl. and F., 100.
Agent and Client - Reparation.
[595] APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF SESSION, SCOTLAND. JOHN HART and WILLIAM HODGE, Appellants.*-Sir William Follett-A. M'Neill; JOHN FRAME and COMPANY, Respondents.-Dr. Lushington [18th June 1839]. [Mews' Dig. xiii. 1467, 1470. S.C., 6 Cl. and F., 193 ; 3 Jur., 547 ; 7 Scots, R.R., 241. Distinguished in Smith v. Grant, 1838, 20 Dunlop, 1078. Commented on in Purves v. Landell, 1845, 12 Cl. and F., 100.] Agent and Client-Reparation.-A country agent was employed by a manufacturing company to prepare petitions, at their instance, to the justices of peace against two apprentices, for having deserted their work, and other misconduct. The agent accordingly prepared and presented petitions, founded on the 4th Geo. 4. c. 34., but libelling the third section, instead of the first which related to apprentices in the situation of those complained of; the apprentices were convicted and imprisoned, but subsequently liberated by the Court of Justiciary in respect of the wrong section having been founded * 14 D., B., and M., 914. 922 : Fac. Coll. 9th June 1836. 218 HART V. FRAME [1839] MACLEAN & ROBINSON, 596 on, and they thereafter sued the company for damages and expenses: Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session) that as the terms of the act were clear, the agent was liable in relief, although there was no established course of practice under the statute, and although neither the opposite agents in the inferior court nor the sheriff-substitute of the county considered the petitions to have been erroneously libelled. The appellants are in partnership as writers in the town of Paisley, and the respondents were calico manufacturers in Glasgow and at Locherbank in the county of [596] Renfrew, where their works are situated, having in their employment a great number of apprentices. By the first section of the 4th Geo. 4. c. 34., intituled " An act to enlarge the power of justices in determining complaints between masters and servants, and between masters, apprentices, artificers, and others," it is enacted, " that it shall and may be lawful not only for any master or mistress, but also for his or her steward, manager, or agent, to make complaint upon oath against any apprentice within the meaning of the said before recited acts (viz. 20 Geo. 2. c. 19. and 6 Geo. 3. c. 25.) to any justice of the peace of the county or place where such apprentice shall be employed, of or for any misdemeanor, misconduct, or ill-behaviour of any such apprentice; or if such apprentice shall have absconded, it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace of the county or place where such apprentice shall be found, or where such apprentice shall have been employed, and any such justice is hereby empowered, upon complaint thereof made upon oath by such master, mistress, steward, manager, or agent, which oath the said justice is hereby empowered to administer, to issue his warrant for apprehending every such apprentice; and further that it shall be lawful for any such justice to hear and determine the same complaint, and to punish the offender by abating the whole or any part of his or her wages, or otherwise by commitment to the house of correction, there to remain and be held to hard labour for a reasonable time not exceeding three months." By the third section of the statute it is enacted, " that if any servant in husbandry, or any artificer, [597] calico printer, handicraftsman, miner, collier, keelman, pitman, glassman, potter, labourer, or other person, 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 his or her service according to his or her contract (such contract being in writing, and signed by the contracting parties,) or having entered into such service, shall absent himself or herself from his or her service before the term of his or her contract, whether such contract shall be in writing or not in writing, shall be completed, or neglect to fulfil the same, or be guilty of any other misconduct or misdemeanor in the execution thereof, or otherwise respecting the same, then and in every such case it shall and may be lawful for any such justice of the peace of the county or place where such servant in husbandry, artificer, etc., or other person, shall have so contracted, or be employed, or be found; and such justice is hereby authorized and empowered, upon complaint thereof made upon oath to him by the person or persons, or any of them, with whom such servant in husbandry, artificer, etc., or other person, shall have so contracted, or by his, her, or their steward, manager, or agent, which oath such justice is hereby empowered to administer, to issue his warrant for the apprehending every such servant in husbandry, artificer, etc., or other person, and to examine into the nature of the complaint; and if it shall appear to such justice that any such servant in husbandry, artificer, etc., or other person, shall not have fulfilled such contract, or hath been guilty of any other misconduct or misdemeanor as aforesaid, it shall and may be lawful [598] for such justice to commit every such person to the house of correction, there to remain and be held to hard labour for a reasonable time, not exceeding three months, and to abate a portionable part of his or her wages, for and during such period as he or she shall be so confined in the house of correction, or in lieu thereof, to punish the offender by abating the whole or any part of his or her wages; or to discharge such servant in husbandry, artificer, etc., or other person, from his or her contract, service, or employment, which discharge shall be given under the hand and seal of such justice gratis." The respondents having deemed it necessary, for the safety and protection of themselves and their business, to take proceedings against some of their apprentices, 219 MACLEAN & ROBINSON, 599 HART V. FRAME [1839] under the above act, employed the appellants to prepare petitions to the justices of the peace for Renfrewshire against two apprentices belonging to the manufactory, of the names of Houston and Crookshanks, for having deserted their work, and other misconduct. These petitions were presented to the justices, and after certain procedure and proof Houston and Crookshanks were convicted, and committed to the house of correction. Bills of suspension and liberation having been presented to the high court of justiciary by Houston and Crookshanks and two other apprentices named Hunter and Gilmour, who had been convicted and committed to the house of correction upon petitions, at the instance of the respondents, prepared by Mr. James Campbell, writer in Johnston, these convictions were quashed, and the prisoners ordered to be liberated. The petitions which had been prepared and presented by [599] Mr. Campbell specially libelled on the third section, and the appellants, seeing that a conviction had followed, prepared the petitions against Houston and Crook-shanks in similar terms, specially libelling on the same section. In the course of the proceedings against Hunter and Gilmour, no objection to the petitions, as founded on a wrong section of the statute, had been taken by the agents who appeared on behalf of the apprentices; but in the case of petitions presented against Houston and Crookshanks, in answer to an objection taken, that the petition had been founded on the third section instead of upon the first, the sheriff substitute of Renfrew, acting as a justice of the peace, delivered the following decision :-" As to this objection I should not be disposed to sustain it, at any rate, considering that the provisions of the third section are of general application; but any doubt on that score seems removed by the subsequent statute 10 Geo. 4. c. 52., which has the effect of making all the provisions of the act founded on applicable to apprentices." Houston and Crookshanks raised separate actions of damages against the respondents on account of the proceedings at their instance, which actions were duly intimated by the respondents to the appellants. After an arrangement the respondents agreed to pay to each of the parties, Houston and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Hart and W. Hodge, - Appellants; John Frame, Son, and Company, - Respondents
...FROM THE COURT OF SESSION. John Hart and W. Hodge -Appellants John Frame, Son, and Co. -Respondents Mews' Dig. xiii. 1467, 1470; S.C. Macl. and R. 595; 3 Jur. 547; 7 Scots R.R. 241. Distinguished in Smith v. Grant, 1858, 20 Dunlop 1079. Commented on in Purves v. Landell, 1845, 12 Cl. and F.......