CO^'TEACTOE NOT WTTIITN STATUTE. 207 



or wiHiiii tlie ciiriilage, he lived in tlie grounds on the domain {Noirlan 

 X. Ahlcit, 2 C. M. & R. 54). 



No contract for services. — Where services have been rendered witliout 

 any express contract for wages, bnt with board and lodging and other 

 benefits (here to keep fowls, bees, &c., for her profit, altliongh she paid 

 for their food herself), it was ruled by Martin B. that a contract to pay 

 for such service is not to be implied {Foord y. MorJey). 



It is specially provided for by section 20 of the Truch Act, stat. 1 & 2 

 Will. IV. c. 37, that it shall not extend to any domestic servant or 

 servants in husbandry. 



It was held by the Exchequer Chamber, in affirmance of the decision 

 of Lord Camphell C.J. and Coleridge J. {Erie J. diss.), that a labourer or 

 artificer ivlio enters into a contract to do certain work (as hriclc-making) at 

 so much per foot, or p)&r thousand, or tJie like, under which co?itract M maij 

 get the work done hj other persons, and is not bound to bestow his own 

 personal labour, is not within the protection of the statute, so as to 

 defeat a set-off for goods supplied at a shop in which the employer is 

 interested, in part payment of the wages or money so to be paid under 

 the contract {Ingram v. Barnes). Cressivell J. said : " I ground my 

 judgment on this : that if this were res integra, I should be convinced 

 that the statute applied only to cases where, by the contract, personal 

 service was to be given for wages. That was the view taken in all the 

 cases up to this. It was so held in Rileg v. Warden. In Sharman v. 

 Sanders the judges did not, as my brother Erie seems to suppose, 

 proceed merely in deference to the authority of Riley v. Warden. Each 

 judge expressed his full approbation of that decision. The Chief 

 justice did so ; my brother Maule puts it very clearly ; and I also 

 expressed my concurrence m it. In Bowers v. Lovekin I find the same 

 doctrine acted upon. The ground of the decision upholding the judg- 

 ment of the County Court was, as stated by Lord Camphell C.J. in his 

 judgment, that ' it is found as a fact that the defendants were bound to 

 give their personal labour hke any other workman. It was an oral 

 contract; and the County Court judge found that such was the contract; 

 and on his finding the judgment proceeded. I think the judgment 

 below right, and the doubt expressed unfounded.' " And per Channel B. : 

 " The case seems to me not to be distinguishable from Rileg v. Warden 

 and Sharman v. Sanders. But I do not rest wholly on that ground, for 

 I entirely concur in the spirit of those decisions with respect to Boivers 

 V. Lovekin and Weaver v. Llogd ; all I think it necessary to say is, that 

 our decision does not clash with them." The decision in Rilcg v. 

 Warden was to the eflFect that a person who takes a contract to execute 

 a certain cutting on a railway, at a certain sum per cubit yard, and 



