Page images

unless it be stamped. The schedule to the Stamp Act of 1870, 33 & 34 Vict., c. 97, exempts :-(1.) Agreement or memorandum the matter whereof is not of the value of £5. (2.) Agreement or memorandum for the hire of any labourer, artificer, manufacturer, or menial servant. (3.) Agreement, letter, or memorandum made for or relating to the sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise. (4.) Agreement or memorandum made between the masters and mariners of any ship or vessel for wages on any voyage coastwise from port to port in the United Kingdom.

These exceptions are taken from the Stamp Act, the 55 Geo. III., c. 184, and the decisions upon that statute illustrate the later Act. The chief of them are stated below.

The Stamp Act (33 & 34 Vict. c. 97, s. 39) of 1870 states that

[ocr errors]

Every writing relating to the service or tuition of any apprentice (b), clerk, or servant placed with any master to learn any profession,

(b) As to what are contracts of apprenticeship, see chap. III. The following are some of the chief deci. sions with respect to duties payable on indentures of apprenticeship: R. v. Louth (1828), 8 B. & C. 247. (An indenture to two masters to serve then consecutively in two distinct trades for periods of four and three years, requires only one stamp:) R. v. Ide (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 807. (Consideration for assignment of a parish apprentice need not be set out.) R. v. Church Hulme (1831), 5 B. & Ad. 1029 b. (An indonture must be stamped with the ad-valorem duty within the time prescribed by 8 Ann, c. 9, ss. 36, 37, and 38.) Morris v. Cox (1841), 2 M. & G. 659; 5 Jur. 367. (An assignment with new terms inserted does not require new stamp.)

CONSIDERATION VALID.-R. v. Walton (1790), 3 T. R. 515.

(Ap. prentice to provide himself meat, drink &c. ; the master covenanted to make weekly payments to apprentice; the justices not having found that the payments were not equivalent, no additional duty payable.) R. v. St.

Petrox (1791), 4 T. R. 196. (Payment to master's mother not men. tioned in indenture.) R. v. Leighton (1792), 4 T. R. 732. (No duty pay. able when meat, drink, lodging, clothes and washing provided for apprentice and no money given to master.) Also R. v. Portsca (1776), Bur. S. C. 834 ; R. v. Wantage (1801), 1 East, 601. (No duty when master stipulates for part of apprentice's Wages, all of which belong to the master in the absence of agreement.) R. v. Aylesbury(1832), 3 B. & Ad.569. (Indenture not liable to duty when the master covenanted to find the apprentico necessaries, and the father of the apprentice agreed before the execution of the indenture to find the apprentice clothing and washing.) R. v. Bradford (1813), 1 M. & S. 151. (No ad-valorem duty payable when no premium payable, and the apprentice covenanted to allow his master 2s. a week, and the apprentice was to have wages and to provide for himself.) R. v. Low (1829), 3 C. & P. 620. (Not the exact sum originally agreed to be paid, but the sum actually paid, inserted in the indenture.)

[ocr errors]

trade, or employment (except articles of clerkship to attorneys and others hereby specifically charged with duty), is to be deemed an instrument of apprenticeship.

Section 40. The full sum of money, and the value of any other matter or thing, paid, given, or assigned, or secured to be paid, given, or assigned, to or for the benefit of the master with or in respect of any apprentice, clerk,'or servant (not being a person bound to serve in order to admission in any court), is to be fully and truly set forth in an instrument of apprenticeship: and if any such sum, or other matter or thing be paid, given, assigned, or secured as aforesaid, and no such instrument be made, or if any instrument be made and such sum, or the value of such other matter or thing, be not set forth therein as aforesaid, the master, and also the apprentice himself, if of full age,


person being a party to the contract, or by whom any such sum, or other matter or thing, is paid, given, assigned, or secured, shall forfeit the sum of twenty pounds, and the contract, and the instrument (if any) containing the same, shall be null and void.

Bourton (1829), 9 B. & C. 872; 4 M. & R. 631. (Undertaking given to master by a married woman without knowledge of her husband when binding her son, that £10 should be inserted in indenture as premium ; a private promise that the master should receive more and a further payment; the indenture valid, there being no valid contract to pay more than £10.) P. v. Harrington (1836), 4 A. & E. 618; 6 N. & M. 165. (Indenture not void by the insertion of wrong date.) Shepherd v. Hall (1812), 3 Camp. 180. (£20 agreed ; £19 19s. 6d., actually paid and inserted as consideration.) Hankins v. Clutterbuck (1848), 2 C. & K. 811. (A sum of £99 198. paid, and stated to be the consideration. Simul. taneously with indenture a written agreement between master and apprentice's uncle that £150 more should be paid for the board of the apprentice, and £50 actually paid. Held consi deration truly inserted.)

Nor VALID. R. V. Baildon (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 427. (Consideration stated in indenture £4, private promise by mother to pay, and actual payment of £1 additional ; indenture void.) R. v. Amersham (1836), 6 N. & M. 12; 4 A. & E. 508 ; 1 H. & W. 694. (Indenture stated consi. deration of £10 to be paid by the trustees of a charity. Previous to the agreement a promise by the apprentice's grandfather, who was no party to the deed, to pay an additional £25; £15 actually paid, ap.

parently without the knowledge of trustees.)

RECOVERY OF PREMIUM.— Stokes v. Twitchen (1818), 8 Taunt. 492 ; 2 Moore, 538. (Plaintiff executed in. denture of apprenticeship of her son, and paid premium. Indenture did not state consideration, and was not stamped. Held that the plaintiff could not recover the consideration paid, she having notice of the fraud on the revenue.) Westlake v. Adams (1858), 5 C. B. N. S. 248 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 271; 4 Jur. N. S. 1021. (Action upon 1.0. U.; defendant on the apprenticing of his son to plaintiff by a charitable society agreed to give to plaintiff, in addition to a premium to be paid by the society, four 1.0.U.'s for £5 each, payable at intervals of a year. After the expiration of term of apprenticeship plaintiff sued on the 1.0.U.'s. The action maintainable, though indenture void.) Mann v. Lent (1830), 10 B. & C. 877 ; at N. P. (1828), 1 M. & M. 240. (Action by indorsee of bill of exchange against acceptor. The bill was given for premium £30, which the latter agreed to pay as premium of

After the apprentice had served five months it was discovered the stamp was insufficient, and the apprentice left his master's service. Held no answer to action by payee against acceptor.) See also Jackson v. Warwick (1797), 7 T. R. 121 ; Macleod v. Sinclair (1738), M. 585 ; Donaldson y. Fulton, M. 587.

his son.

The same Act (Schedule of Duties) imposes a duty, where there is no premium or consideration, of 2s. 6d. “In any other case-for every £5, and also for any fractional part of £5, of the amount or value of the premium or consideration, 58."


(1.) Instrument relating to any poor child apprenticed by, or at the sole charge of, any parish or township, or by or at the sole charge of, any public charity, or pursuant to any Act for the regulation of parish apprentices.

“ (2.) Instrument of apprenticeship in Ireland, where the value of the premium or consideration does not exceed £10."

See also 17 & 18 Vict., c. 104, s. 143, as to indentures of apprenticeship to the sea service.

By the Customs and Revenue Act of 1869 (32 & 33 Vict., c. 14, s. 18), a duty of 158. is payable " for every male servant."

According to sect. 19, sub-sect. 3,“ the term 'male servant 'means and includes any male servant employed either wholly or partially in any of the following capacities; that is to say, maître d'hôtel, house steward, master of the horse, groom of the chambers, valet de chambre, butler, under butler, clerk of the kitchen, confectioner, cook, house porter, footman, page, waiter, coachman, groom, postilion, stable-boy or helper in the stables, gardener, under gardener, park-keeper, game-keeper, under game-keeper, huntsman and whipper-in, or in any capacity involving the duties of any of the above descriptions of servants, by whatever style the person acting in such capacity may be called : (4.) Every person who shall furnish any male servant on hire shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the employer of such servant : (5.) It shall not be necessary for licences to be taken out in the following cases, viz. :—By any officer in Her Majesty's army or navy for any servant, being a soldier in the army or a person actually borne upon the books of a ship, and einployed by such officer in accordance with the regulations of Her Majesty's service: By any licensed retailer of exciseable liquors or licensed keeper of a refreshment house for any servant employed by him solely for the purposes of his business, such servant being the only male servant employed by him : By any person who shall have made entry of his premises in accordance with section twenty-eight of this Act for any servant einployed by him at such premises in the course of his

[ocr errors]


trade, other than a servant employed to drive a carriage with any horse let to hire for any period exceeding twenty-eight days ; provided that such person shall have complied with all the provisions contained in the said section : By any person duly licensed by proper authority to keep or use any public stage or hackney carriage for any servant necessarily employed by him to drive such stage or hackney carriage, or in the care of such stage or hackney carriage, or of the horse or horses kept and used by him to draw the same." The Act imposes a penalty of £20 for not taking out a licence (sect. 27). Every person who shall furnish a servant on hire is required to enter in a book the name of the servant and the name and address of the person hiring such servant (sect. 29).

The Court of Exchequer, in Spencer v. Sheerman (d), decided that hotel-keepers must take out licences for waiters engaged only for two or three weeks. But the 36 & 37 Vict., c. 18, s. 4, annuls the effect of this, by enacting that it shall not be necessary for a licence to be taken out under 32 & 33 Vict., c. 14, by any hotel-keeper, retailer of intoxicating liquor, or refreshment-house keeper, for any servant wholly employed by him for the purposes of his business.

(d) (1871) 23 L. T. 873. See also 39 Vict. c. 16, s. 5, as to “male servant."



[ocr errors]

AGREEMENTS of hiring and service require consideration in order that they may be enforced.

Mandate, that is, a gratuitous undertaking to perform services, is of much less consequence in English law, than it is in Roman law (a). The former has to do mainly with promises to serve for some consideration. If A. promises to serve B., and B. does or gives or promises nothing in return, no action (unless in the case of contracts under seal) lies; the maxim ex nudo pacto non oritur actio applies (b). Consideration embraces many things besides money. It will not include the ties of relationship or friendship, or merely moral duties. To support a promise it is, however, enough that there should be, to quote the judgment of the Court in Currie v. Misa (c),“ some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other.” The consideration need not be such as in fairness would be adequate; that is a matter for the parties to the agreement. The Courts will not, for example, inquire whether a servant's wages are too low, or whether the agreement of hiring is too much to the advantage of one of the parties (d). The consi

(a) Hunter's Roman Law, 308.

(6) Promise by directors to work gratuitously not binding; Lambert v. Buenos Ayres Co. (1869), 18 W. R. 180. In Dunston v. Imperial Gas Light Co. (1831), 3 B. & Ad. 125, it was held that directors of a company, not being servants, but managers or

governors, could recover no remune. ration from the company unless by virtue of an express resolution under seal.

(c) (1875) L. R. 10 Ex. 162 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 99.

(d) Hitchcock v. Coker (1837), 6 A. & E. 438.

« EelmineJätka »