The Queen against Lord
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 July 1850 |
| Date | 12 July 1850 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 1055
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 17 L. J. M. C. 181; 12 Jur. 1001. Distinguished, Leslie v. Fitzpatrick, 1877, 3 Q. B. D. 231. Applied, Meakin v. Morris, 1844, 12 Q. B. D. 355; Corn v. Matthews, [1893] 1 Q. B. 314.
1SQ.B.758. THE QUEEN V. LORD 1055 the queen against lord. Wednesday, July 12th, [1850], A contract by an infant, binding him to serve during a certain time for wagea, but enabling the master to stop the work whenever he chooses, and to retain the wages during stoppage, is wlollj void, as not being beneficial to the infant. And, where a servant bad been convicted (under atat. 4 G. 4, c. 34, s. 3), of absenting himself from service under such contract, this Court quashed the conviction. [S. C. 17 L. J. M. C. 181; 12 Jur. 1001. Distinguished, Leslie v. Fitstpalnek, 1877, 3 Q. B. D. 231. Applied, Meakin v. Morris, 1884, ;i2 Q. B. D. 355; Own v. MatOitwa, [1893] 1 Q. B. 314.] J. W. Huddleston, in Michaelmas term, 1846, obtained a rule, absolute in the first instance, for a certiorari to bring up a conviction of James Lord under stat. 4 G. 4, c. 34, s. 3. The conviction, by three justices (Lancashire, 2d October 1846), set forth an information, laid before one of the justices by the manager for John Mason of Rochdale, machine-maker, complaining that, on, &c. [758] (29th July 1846), at Castleton, in the county of Lancaster, James Lord, in consideration of Mason's agreeing to pay him certain wages, contracted with Mason to serve him as an artificer, &c. (reciting, in substance, the agreement after stated): and that the said James Lord, having accordingly entered into such service, &c,, did, afterwards, to wit on, &c. (3d August, 1846), at, &c,, and before the terra of his said contract was completed, and whilst the same contracS was subsisting, wilfully neglect to fulfil the said contract, to wit did unlawfully absent himself from the said service without the consent of the said J. Mason, or any lawful cause, &c., against the form of the statute, &c. The conviction then stated the apprehension of Lord under a warrant, and his appearance before the convicting justices; and that, having heard the charge, he declared that he was an infant under the age of twenty-one years. Whereupon the justices proceeded to examine into tha complaint, &c.: and a paper writing was produced by the informant before them, in the presence of Lord ; which writing was as follows. " An agreement made the 29th day of July 1846, between John Mason, of," &c., " machine-maker, of the one part, and James Lord, of," &c., " of the other part. The said James Lord, for the consideration hereinafter expressed, agrees with the said J. M. that he, the said James Lord, according to the best of his skill and ability, ahall and will, during the space of twelve months from the day of the date hereof, deter-minable as hereinafter mentioned, diligently and faithfully serve and employ himself, for the benefit of the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial