NOTICE TO FARM BAILIFF. 209 



Knight Bruce V.C. held that a farm bailiff ^Yho had lived 28 years wilh 

 the Earl of Leicester at £350 a year, living on the home farm within 

 the park rent-free, the earl paying all rates and taxes, and who was 

 allowed keep for a cow and horse, and to take pnpils in agriculture, was 

 a servant who might receive a legacy within the meaning of the will. 

 And so may a gardener and under-gardener, in the exclusive employ- 

 ment of the testator, at weekly wages, but living at their own houses 

 (Thn/pj) V. CoUeft). The bailiff cannot be considered as the em^jJoyer of 

 the labourers on his master's own farm, within the sense of the words 

 in stat. 20 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 2, though the contract of hiring was made 

 by the bailiff personally ; and hence it was held in Rex v. Hoseason to 

 be a most abusive interpretation of the law for a magistrate to sentence 

 one of the servants on his own farm to be " corrected and kept to hard 

 labour for one calendar month" on a complaint referred to him in his 

 judicial character by his bailiff. 



Reg. V. WortJeij turned upon the point as to whether a farm bailiff, 

 according to the terms of his agreement, ivas a servant or a 'partner. Here 

 the defendant was engaged to "take charge of the glebe land of the 

 Eev. J. B. Clarke, his wife undertaking the dairy, and poultry, &c., at 

 15s. a week till Michaelmas, 1850, and afterwards at a salary of £25 a 

 year and a third of the clear annual profit after all expenses of rent and 

 rates, labour, and interest on capital, &c., are paid on a fair valua- 

 tion made from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Three months' notice on 

 either side to be given, at the expiration of which time the cottage to 

 be vacated by Samuel Wortley, who occupies it as bailiff, in addition 

 to his salary." It was held that the defendant w^as a servant, and not a 

 partner. He was not, however, a menial servant, but a labourer ; and 

 the agreement was admissible in evidence, though unstamped, as it fell 

 within the exemption in the Stamp Act as an agreement for the hire of 

 a labourer. And p)er Lord Campletl C.J. : " I see no reason for con- 

 fining the meaning of the word ' labourer ' to a mere hedger and ditcher." 

 Contracts to serve as artificers, clerks, servants either domestic or in 

 husbandry, handicraftsmen, mechanics, gardeners, or labourers are ex- 

 empted by sec. 21 of stat. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 83. 



The lailiff' of a farming cstaUishment, through whose hands all pay- 

 ments and receipts pass, has no implied authority to pledge the credit of 

 his employer hy drawing and indorsing bills of excJmnge in the name of 

 the latter. Nor in the absence of nil direct evidence of authority does 

 the nature of the employment of such a bailiff furnish any ground for 

 inferring the existence of such an authority upon slight or on any other 

 than clear and distinct evidence of assent or acquiescence {Davidson v. 

 Stanteg). And p)er Tindat C.J. : " If bankers could recover on such a 



