JDRISDICTIOX OF MAGISTRATES AS TO BATLTFFS. 205 



enter his service as bailiff for a year, and B took tlio proposals and went 

 away, and entered into A's service on July 24th, it was held by the 

 Court of Exchequer that this was a contract on the 20th not to be 

 performed within a year from the making thereof, and within the 4th 

 section of the Statute of Frauds {SnelJimj v. Lord Himtinij field). 



A servant in husbandry being hired for a quarter of a year, entered 

 the service and was discharged before the end of the quarter ; she 

 immediately sued her master in the County Court fur discharging- her 

 without reasonable cause, and a verdict was given for the defendant. 

 After the quarter had elapsed, she took out a summons before justices 

 against the defendant to recover tiie quarter's wages. It was held that 

 the question to be decided was essentially the same in the two courts, 

 viz., whether the discharge was wrongful, and that the decision in the 

 County Court was conclusive between the parties. And^j^r CocJrhurn C.J. : 

 " It was admitted, and, indeed, could not be denied successfully, that 

 the question raised by the plaint and particulars in the one case, and 

 the complaint on oath in the other was the same, viz., whether the dis- 

 charge of the respondent was without just cause. Varying the form of 

 claim, where the claim itself is the same, does not prevent the application 

 of the rule of law to which reference has been made " {RoutUdge appt, v. 

 Hislop resp). 



Jurisdiction of magistrates does not extend to haiJiffs. — A person engao-ed 

 by the owner of a farm from year to year, subject to a month's notice, 

 and at a salary of 25s. per week, to keep the general accounts belonging 

 to such farm, to weigh out the food for the cattle, to set the men to 

 work, to lend a hand to anything if wanted, and in all things to carry 

 out the orders given to him, is not a servant in husbandry within the 

 section 3 of Geo. IV. c. 34, so as to be liable to conviction under that 

 section for refusing to obey an order given to him by the owner of the 

 farm. The appellant had thrown back a paper at the agent, declaring 

 that he would not give information respecting the herd of Herefords at 

 Cronkhill until a notice which had appeared in the Shrewsbury papers 

 that the appellant was not authorised to receive money on behalf of the 

 defendant was cleared up. The appellant had certain information 

 requisite for identifying the calves, &c., partly in a book and partly in 

 his head ; but^jer Curiam, Cronipton J., and Hill J., "The provisions in 

 the act apply to persons engaged in manual work, whereas the appellant 

 here was rather a steward or bailiff. The principal thing which he had 

 to do, besides setting the men to work and weighing out the food for the 

 cattle, was to keep the general accounts, and although he was also to make 

 himself generally useful that was only accessory to his principal work. 

 If we held that he was a servant in husbandry, so as to be liable to be 



