1 134 



Official Notices and Circulars. [feb., 



delivered or advised to the Government Factors up to and including 

 29th February, 1920. Such cheese not advised or delivered to the 

 Government Factors on or before 29th February, 1920, will not be 

 accepted as Government purchase. The cheese accumulated in the 

 Government Pool will be distributed during the months of January 

 February and ]\Iarch, 1920, under Government Control. 



At the Lambeth County Court his Honour Judge Parry gave his 

 reserved judgment in the case of Deering v. Watney, in which John 

 Deering, of Plaxtol, claimed at the Sevenoaks 

 Legal Decisions under County Court, from Colonel Charles F. Watney, 

 the Corn of Ivy Hatch Court, £24 35., being the difference 



Production Act. between wages received by him as gardener 

 and the minimum wage allowed by the Agricul- 

 tural Wages Board (under the Com Production Act) for odd time 

 that he alleged he was engaged in agriculture. 



" The defendant," said his Honour, " has about 20 acres of land 

 attached to his house, about five or six lawns and gardens, of which 

 an acre and a half is kitchen garden. There are five acres of plantation, 

 five acres of grazing and five acres of cherry and apple orchard. The 

 defendant does not carry on the business of agriculture. He has sold 

 surplus fruit, but this year there was no surplus fruit. The applicant 

 was employed to work in the gardens, especially the kitchen garden, 

 and to do odd labouring jobs when not wanted in the garden. There 

 is no doubt that he did work in the plantation pruning the nut bushes. 

 The evidence is conflicting as to how long he worked there. The 

 defendant was at the War, and his wife left matters to the bailiff. No 

 objection was taken or claim made at the time, and no record of hours 

 kept by either party. He also cut some bracken for bedding. I find, 

 as a fact, that he was employed on these jobs for four weeks in all and 

 not more, and during the rest of his time he was employed on his main 

 and proper work in the kitchen gardens. 



" The applicant contends that he is entitled to the minimum wage 

 during the whole of his emplo\Tnent. Clause 4 of the Act says that 

 ' Any person who employs a person in agriculture,' shall pay the mini- 

 mum wage rate. Clause 1 7 says that agriculture includes the use of land 

 as orchard or woodland or market garden. I think the main work of 

 the applicant was in the kitchen gardens, and I hold that the applicant 

 cannot claim the minimum wage when so employed. I think for about 

 four weeks he was employed in agriculture within the meaning of the 

 Act. I see nothing in the Act to prevent a man employed in another 

 capacity claiming a minimum wage, during such time as he is actually 

 employed in agriculture. He put in a claim for a fortnight's ha^miaking. 

 He could not swing a scythe, but he helped to pitch the hay. Everyone 

 in the house, from the visitors downward, did the same. It is an almost 

 universal practice in English country life for all the household, in- 

 cluding domestic servants and visitors, to help in the hay-field during 

 the hay harvest. 



'* I do not think, if a man's butler helped to pitch hay, he would be 

 a workman employed in agriculture within the Act, and I have not 

 allowed the applicant anything on this part of his claim. In my view 

 the mere fact, in an estate of this kind, that a man does an odd job of 

 an agricultural character does not entitle him to the minimum wage. 



