SUNDAY HIRING, 199 



CHAPTER VII. 



SERVANTS. 



A CONTRACT of hiring made on a Sunday between a farmer and a 

 labourer for a year, is not " business or work of their ordinary calling " 

 within 29 Gar. II. c. 7, s. 1, and is therefore valid {Rex v. Inhabitants 

 of Whitnash). A contract of hmng may be qualified Ivj proof of cus- 

 tomary Jiolidaijs {Reg. Y. Stoke-on-Trent); and proof that the plaintiff 

 and other workmen employed by the defendant came regularly to receive 

 their wages from the defendant, whose practice was to pay every week, 

 and that the plaintiff had not ieen heard to comjylain of non-pagment, u 

 presumptive evidence of payment {Sellen v. Norman, and see Lucas v. 

 Novosilieslci). 



In Cuclison v. Stones, the Court of Queen's Bench decided that to a 

 claim for wages on an agreement to serve the defendant during a cer- 

 tain period at a certain weekly sum, it is no answer tluit the plaintiff 

 was absent from the service of the defendant during the period in respegt 

 of which the wages are claimed by reason of temporary illness. And 

 per Curiam : " We think that want of ability to serve for a week 

 would not of necessity be an answer to a claim for a week's wages. In 

 truth, the plaintiff was here ready and willing to serve had he been 

 well, and able to do so, and was only prevented serving during the 

 week by the visitation of Grod, the contract never having been deter- 

 mined " (ib.). 



Long continued service creates no claim for remuneration without a 

 bargain for it, either express or implied from circumstances, showing an 

 understanding on both sides that there should be payment ; and so it 

 was ruled by Martin B. in Reeve v. Reeve (on the authority of Hin- 

 geston v. Kellg), when the plaintiff had, five years before action, been 

 engaged by his nephew, the defendant, to look after his farm, and to 

 have board, lodging and clothing. The case for the plaintiff (for 

 whom the jury found), was that there was a further bargain for wages 

 at four shillings a-week, but this the defendant denied. A new trial 

 was granted on the ground that the evidence was not suiUcient as to 

 a bar2;aiu for wages. 



