CENTRAL COURTS 217, 



the judgment is also for the defendant, on the ground thai 

 he had sufficient services to perform for a lord of whom he 

 held some land and that therefore he was exempt from 

 the clause.^ 



The result of these figures is to prove that the courts were 

 perfectly ready to allow to servants or to masters offend- 

 ing against the labour legislation the full advantage of any 

 legal technicalities ; but that the juries almost never gave ver- 

 dicts in favor of servants or even of employers who were 

 charged with infringement of the law. It has already been 

 shown what kind of questions of fact arose in actions for 

 breach of contract ; but it has also been admitted that no in- 

 formation has come to my notice as to the necessity of any 

 formality, such as the presence of witnesses, for the validity 

 of the parol agreement between master and servant. If a 

 servant said in court that no such agreement existed, or if 

 a second master claimed a previous contract with the ser- 

 vant, it must have been difficult to establish either the truth 

 or the falsity of the statement. In the existing conditions 

 of the labour market the sympathy of witnesses called in to 

 testify and also of the jurors was likely to be on the side of 

 the plaintiff, while the presumption of guilt was certainly on 

 the side of the defendant. There is small cause for wonder 

 that even by conscientious jurors the acquittal of servants 

 and masters on trial was not frequent. 



An exhaustive study of the Plea Rolls for the reign of 

 Edward would undeniably still further confirm the im- 

 pression that the upper courts were giving full measure of 

 attention to the statutes of labourers, thus supplementing 



this report: " One cannot join, in one Writ, two Persons who refuse to 

 serve." It is strange that the writ in the Regisiruni should be against 

 two: app., 412. 

 'Case 20, app., F, 4; cf. also s. 4 and s. 6. 



