2U:J EEFUSAL BY SERVANT TO OBEY ORDEBS. 



this Act, for the payment of an amount of weekly wages adjudged to be 

 due from a master to his servant, on a complaint under 20 Geo. II. c. It), 

 although the justices in making such order may have acted without 

 jurisdiction {Beg. v. Bcdwell). In ex parte Hughes, it was decided that 

 t tea Justices niiglit make an order on the master for j^ayment of a year's 

 wages to a dairgmakl, as being a servant in husbandry, under 20 Geo. II. 

 c. 19. Mary Hughes was hired in the above capacity to serve for a year, 

 and to assist in the harvesting of the hay and corn if required. She had 

 also to keep the house,and to cook for the men-servants and labourers, 

 and to make their beds; and when the master, and sometimes his family, 

 visited the farm, which he did weekly, she cooked for and attended upon 

 them. Wigldmau J. : " Suppose it were exclusively a dairy farm, would 

 you say there was no servant in husbandry em23loyed upon it ? " And. 

 jw Lord Campbell C.J. : " She was employed with a view to the dis- 

 charge of duties connected with husbandry, and the domestic duties 

 performed by her were ancillary to those she was employed to discharge, 

 A servant in hus])andry may serve iutra mania.''' 



Spain V. Arnott was an earlier case of the same class as Lilog v. Elwin. 

 The plaintiff was a yearly servant to a farmer, and usually breakfasted 

 at five and dined at two. One day, when dinner was ready, he was 

 ordered, to go to the Marsh, which was a mile off, with the horses. He 

 said he had done his due, and would not go without his dinner, and was 

 sent about his business for the refusal. Lord EUenhoroitgh C.J. ruled 

 that, if the contract ivas for a yeafs service, the year must he completed 

 before the servant is entitled to be paid. If the j^laintiff persisted in 

 refusing to obey orders, he was warranted in turning him away. He 

 might have obtained relief by applying to a magistrate, but he was not 

 bound to pursue that course ; the relation between master and servant, 

 and the laws by which that relation is regulated, existed long before 

 the statute. There is no contract between the parties except that which 

 the law makes for them ; and it may be hard on the servant, but it 

 would be exceedingly inconvenient if the servant were to be permitted 

 to set himself up to control his master in his domestic regulations. A 

 juror was afterwards withdrawn by consent. It was also ruled by the 

 Court of Queen's Bench, in Turner v. Robinson, in which Spctin v. Arnott 

 was cited, that where the^w/w^a facie presum})tion was that the plaintiff 

 was hired for a year, and there was nothing to rebut that presumption, 

 if he violated his duty Ix-foi'c the year expired, so as to i»revent the 

 defendant from having his services for the whole year, he cannot recover 

 wages ^?ro rata. 



The Court of Common Pleas also, in Ilarmvr v. Cornelius, 28 L. J. 

 C. P. 85 (where it was decided that if a skilled person undeilakc a 



