ported; printed at p. 45 of the memorandum on the Truck Acts, Bluebook-1896 But see 2. If in any contract hereafter to be made between any artificer and his and must not contain any employer, any provision shall be made directly or indirectly respecting the stipulations place where, or the manner in which, or the person or persons with whom, as to the the whole or any part of the wages due or to become due to any such artificer manner in shall be laid out or expended, such contract shall be and is hereby declared illegal, null, and void (ƒ). such which the wages shall be expended. in coin. 3. The entire amount of the wages earned by or payable to any artificer All wages in respect of any labour by him done, shall be actually paid to such artificer must be paid in the current coin of this realm, and not otherwise; and every payment made to any such artificer by his employer, of or in respect of any wages, by the delivery to him of goods or otherwise than in the current coin aforesaid, except as hereinafter mentioned, shall be and is hereby declared illegal, null, and void (g). Having regard to the terms of this section, an employer may not deduct from the wages money which a court of summary jurisdiction has ordered the workman to pay to the employer in respect of breaches of contract to work: Williams v. North's Narigation Collieries, [1906] A. C. 136. Payment in goods illegal. 4. Every artificer shall be entitled to recover from his employer, in the Artificers manner by law provided for the recovery of servants' wages, or by any other lawful ways and means, the whole or so much of the wages earned by such artificer as shall not have been actually paid to him by such his employer in the current coin of this realm. may recover wages if not paid in the current coin. off shall be allowed for 5. In any action, suit, or other proceeding to be hereafter brought or In an action commenced by any artificer against his employer, for the recovery of any brought for sum of money due to any such artificer as the wages of his labour, the wages no setdefendant 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, goods supwares, 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 (h). It is pointed out by Bowen, L. J., in Hewlett v. Allen ([1892] 2 Q. B. 667-8), that this section extinguishes the right of set-off only in the cases specifically mentioned therein (i). In the same case in the House of Lords, Lord Herschell (f) As to the meaning of this section, see the remarks of Lord Herschell in Hewlett v. Allen, [1894] A. C., at pp. 391, 392, and of Lord Morris, ibid., pp. 395, 396. And see the notes on sect. 5, infra. (g) See sect. 10 of the Truck Act, 1887, as to articles made in the workman's own home. (A) See sect. 5 of the Truck Act, 1887. (i) "The general sections of the Act and the provisions which affect the civil rights of parties do not cover precisely the same ground. The payment in current coin of a portion only instead of the entire wages, may be an offence against the Act, and yet, when the workman sues to recover the unpaid portion, the employer is not precluded in all cases and every case alike, although in respect plied by the employer, or by any shop in which the employer is interested. THE TRUCK ACTS. remarks ([1894] A. C. 390): "It (sect. 5) does not touch a case of set-off of money paid for the person employed at his or her request." As to what deductions are allowable, Ex parte Cooper, In re Morris ((1884), 26 Ch. D. 693), is in point. Certain employers, by an arrangement with their workmen, deducted from the monthly wages so much for a doctor's fund, and a reading-room fund. There was no evidence of a contract in writing signed by the workmen allowing the payments or any evidence that the doctor had agreed to accept the liability of the employer. It was held by the Court of Appeal that there had been no payment. But both Earl Selborne and Cotton, L. J., expressly stated that they did not decide that there would not have been payment if the deductions had been made, and applied in pursuance of the workmen's directions in discharging debts for which they were liable. The same question was discussed in Hewlett v. Allen, and received the same answer in the Divisional Court (k), the Court of Appeal (1), and the House of Lords (m), though in each instance upon different grounds. The facts of the case were as follows: The plaintiff, on entering the service of the defendants, her employers, signed an agreement "to conform to all the rules and regulations of Messrs. J. Allen & Sons' works, and to submit to the penalties for the breach of the same, a copy of which rules and regulations was given me at the time of signing this." One of those rules was: All employés will have to become members of the sick and accident club." By the regulations of that club the contributions of the members were fixed, varying in amount according to the wages earned. The plaintiff's subscription, as thereby fixed, was deducted weekly from her wages, she receiving on each occasion a ticket showing her gross amount of wages, the deduction made, and the balance or net wage paid to her. She never received the benefits of the club, and she never raised any objection to this proceeding. The plaintiff sought to recover the amount of the deductions. Bowen, L. J., delivering in the Court of Appeal the judgment of himself and of Esher, M. R., held that the contract was illegal, null and void, under sect. 2 of the Act, and could not therefore be an authority for payments to the fund. "The employer caunot, for the purpose of compliance with the statute, be both payer and payee. An offence against the Act has therefore to all appearance been committed, for the burden lay on the defendant to pay actual coin payable." The Court, however, held that, though the Truck Ac. had been infringed, the employers had a good set-off or counterclaim available to them -as not being prohibited by sect. 5 of the Act-in the fact that "these sums have been paid over professedly on the plaintiff's behalf to a trust fund of which S. Allen is trustee, and have been used for the purposes of the fund, and that she subsequently ratified and assented to such payment and expenditures." The Court also held-though it was not necessary to the decision-that, on the evidence, there had been an offence against sects. 1 and 3 of the Act. In the House of Lords, Herschell, L. C., differed from the Court of Appeal as to the offence, holding that there had been full payment in coin. Though he thought it not quite clear whether the contract was within sect. 2. of the Act, he considered that, even assuming it was, the plaintiff's present claim was barred by her previous consent and authority. There had been in law a payment. "The contrast in these sections is between payment in current coin of the realm and payment in some other fashion; and I can myself entertain no doubt that a payment made by an employer at the instance of a person employed to discharge some obligation of the person employed, or to place the money in the hands of some person in whose hands the person employed desires to place it, is in the sense and meaning of these sections a payment to the person employed as much as if current coin of the realm has been placed in his or her hands" (p. 389, ibid.). This opinion was shared by the other law lords. Secondly, in the view of Lord Herschell, even if the contract was within the Truck Act, and the employer liable to a penalty, the payment might be pleaded as a set-off-a view which the Court of Appeal had adopted. Lord Morris thought that the contract was not within the second section; it was not a "" laying out" or "expending" of wages; there was no stipulation that the payment was to be out of wages. Lord Shand took the same view, observing: "I think all employers may fairly say: 'I shall not employ or retain a servant in my employment unless of certain specified dealings he is deprived of a particular set-off." See Williams v. North's Navigation Collieries, [1906] A. C. 136. (k) 56 J. P. 822. (7) [1892] 2 Q. B. 662. (m) [1894] A. C. 383. he contributes to a sick and benefit fund, and thus makes a provision for a time of illness, and from accident or otherwise, or it may be death.' It is conceived that a contract may be within the section, though the contract does not stipulate that the payment is to be made out of wages. (Vide Lord Herschell's remarks, at p. 391, l. c.) The statute may be infringed even if the artificer might have received payment in cash had he desired it. In Wilson v. Cookson (1863), 32 L. J. M. C. 177, it was proved that from the wages of a labourer were deducted two shillings for goods which he had received at the employer's shop. The Court of Common Pleas held that it was no answer that he might have had the two shillings in cash if he liked (n). The refusal or omission to pay wages is not within the statute. Thus in Redgrave v. Kelly (1889), 37 W. R. 543, it was held that deductions from wages by way of fines for spoilt work and impudence were not touched by the Act (irrespective apparently of their amount). any for or No employer any action or children 6. No employer of any artificer shall have or be entitled to maintain suit or action in any Court of law or equity against any such artificer, in respect of any goods, wares, or merchandise sold, delivered, or supplied to any such artificer by any such employer, whilst in his employment, as or on account of his wages or reward for his labour, or for 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. 7. If any artificer, or his wife or widow, or if any child of any such If the artificer artificer, not being of the full age of twenty-one years, shall become charge- or his wife able to any parish or place, and if within the space of three calendar months become next before the time when any such charge shall be incurred such artificer chargeable to shall have earned or have become entitled to receive any wages for any the overseers the parish, labour by him done, which wages shall not have been paid to such artificer may recover in the current coin of this realm, it shall be lawful for the overseers or any wages earned within overseer of the poor in such parish or place to recover from the employer of the three such artificer in whose service such labour was done, the full amount of preceding wages so unpaid, and to proceed for the recovery thereof by all such ways months, and and means as such artificer himself might have proceeded for that purpose; cash. not paid in and the amount of the wages which may be so recovered shall be applied in reimbursing such parish or place all costs and charges incurred in respect of the person or persons to become chargeable, and the surplus shall be applied and paid over to such person or persons. 8. Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to Not to inprevent or to render invalid any contract for the payment, or any actual validate the payment of payment, to any artificer, of the whole or any part of his wages, either in the wages in bank notes of the governor and company of the Bank of England, or in the notes notes, if of any person or persons carrying on the business of a banker, and duly licensed to issue such notes in pursuance of the laws relating to his Majesty's revenue of stamps, or in drafts or orders for the payment of money to the (n) See Law v. Pratt (1843), 1 L. T. (0. S.) 623. (One of the defendants, partner in a manufacturing firm, kept a shop, at which his men were accustomed to get goods on credit. On the pay-day, once a week, the men who dealt at the shop (the plaintiff being one of them) got from the shop tickets showing their M. debt, and carried them to the pay clerk, Z artificer consents. Penalties on employers entering into contracts hereby declared illegal. Proviso as to second offence. bearer on demand, drawn upon any person or persons carrying on the business of a banker, being duly licensed as aforesaid, within fifteen miles of the place where such drafts or orders shall be so paid, if such artificer shall be freely consenting to receive such drafts or orders as aforesaid, but all payments so made with such consent as aforesaid, in any such notes, drafts, or orders as aforesaid, shall for the purposes of this Act be as valid and effectual as if such payments had been made in the current coin of the realm. 9. Any employer of any artificer, who shall, by himself or by the agency of any other person or persons, directly or indirectly enter into any contract or make any payment hereby declared illegal (o), shall for the first offence forfeit a sum not exceeding ten pounds [nor less than five pounds](p), and for the second offence any sum not exceeding twenty pounds nor less than ten pounds, and in case of a third offence, any such employer shall be and be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being thereof convicted, shall be punished by fine only, at the discretion of the Court, so that the fines shall not in any case exceed the sum of one hundred pounds. This penalty and the liability under section 4 are cumulative: Wilson v. Cookson (1863), 32 L. J. M. C. 177. This section is extended to agents by section 12 of the Truck Amendment Act, 1887. See sect. 13, sub-s. (1) of the Truck Act, 1887, for the maximum penalty to be imposed on summary conviction. 10. (7) . . . Provided always, that no person shall be punished as for a second offence under this Act, unless ten days at the least shall have inter 66 (0) Ashersmith v. Drury (1858), 28 Gould ficer within the Truck Act in the em- (p) Words in brackets repealed except as to Ireland by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1891. (g) The first part of this section repealed by Truck Act, 1887. vened between the conviction of such person for the first and the conviction to be liable in but the 13. No person shall be liable to be convicted of any offence against this A partner not Act committed by his or her co-partner in trade, and without his or her person for the knowledge, privity, or consent; but it shall be lawful, when any penalty, or offence of his any sum for wages, or any other sum, is ordered to be paid, under the co-partner, authority of this Act, and the person or persons ordered to pay the same shall partnership neglect or refuse to do so, to levy the same by distress and sale of any goods property to belonging to any co-partnership concern or business in the carrying on of be so liable. which such charges may have become due or such offence may have been committed; and in all proceedings under this Act to recover any sum due for wages it shall be lawful in all cases of co-partnership for the justices, at the hearing of any complaint for the non-payment thereof, to make an order upon any one or more co-partners for the payment of the sum appearing to be due and in such case the service of a copy of any summons or other process, or of any order, upon one or more of such co-partners, shall be deemed to be a sufficient service upon all. be served. 14. In all cases it shall be deemed and taken to be sufficient service of any How sumsummons to be issued against any offender or offenders by any justice or monses are to justices of the peace, under the authority of this Act, if a duplicate or true copy of the same be left at or upon the place used or occupied by such offender or offenders for carrying on his, her, or their trade or business, or at the place of residence of any such offender or offenders, being at or upon any such place as aforesaid, the same being directed to such offender or offenders by his, her, or their right or assumed name or names. Sections 15 and 16 repealed by Truck Amendment Act, 1887. 17. No conviction, order, or adjudication made by any justice of the peace Convictions under the provisions of this Act shall be quashed for want of form, nor be not to be quashed for removed by certiorari or otherwise into any of his Majesty's superior Courts want of form, |