:milk walk. 22.'5 



refund, and the case having been referred, tlie arbitrator decided for the 

 pkiintiif. The Court considered that the servant who made the mistake 

 was at the time acting as the servant of the defendant, and the awaid 

 Avas confirmed. Evans v. Winifred Birch was a case of supposed cJieaiinij 

 hy a dairymaid, who was sued for money had and received. She liad 

 twenty quarts daily for a milk -walk, and sometimes sold on credit, and 

 sometimes for ready-money. Each morning she accounted with the 

 plaintiff; but there were no written vouchers, and often no third party 

 present : and she was sued for the proceeds of two months' milk. Lord 

 Ellenlorowjh called for " some evidence that the defendant has not paid 

 over the money. If in point of fact she has not, and no negative 

 evidence can be adduced by the plaintifi", I am afraid his only remedy 

 will be by a bill in equity for a discovery and account, though this may 

 be rather an expensive mode of settling a milk score." Siie, however, 

 acknowledged to Is. 8^/. not paid over, and the verdict was for that 

 sum. 



A servant carrying out milk at locelcly wa/jes, with trade ailowances, 

 was restrained by Sir John Romilly M.R. from trading on his ou-n 

 account in contravention of an agreement, signed by him, not to carry 

 on the same business, &c., within the same district (three miles from 

 Charles-street, Grosvenor Square), for two years after ceasing to be 

 employed or leaving the service of his master, his successor, or assigns. 

 His Honour considered that the defendant's being a servant at wages 

 was quite a sufficient consideration to support the agreement, and that 

 it would be a virtual breach of it if he assisted any other milkman 

 {Benwell v. Inns). The trade allowances were bd. for every quantity 

 of eight quarts over and above 44 quarts a day he disposed of ; 2d. per 

 quart for carrying cream ; As. for every customer he introduced who 

 should continue such customer for two months, and take one quart of 

 milk per day, with an additional 4s. for two quarts or more per day 

 which such customer should take {il).). 



The following were general cases of tarceny Inj. farming servants, and 

 somewhat peculiar in their facts. 



Reg. V. Hayward. was a case where the prisoner took the straw to 

 the prosecutor's court-yard, and put it down at the stable-door. The 

 prisoner then went to the prosecutor, to ask him to send some one to 

 open the hay-loft, which was over the stable, that the straw might be 

 put in. He then put in part of the straw, and carried the rest away to 

 a public-house. This carrying away, if done with a felonious intent, 

 was held to be a larceny, and not an embezzlement, as the delivery of 

 the straw to A. was complete when it was put down at the stable-door. 

 And if a servant animo furandi takes his master's hay from his stable 



