The Sun.
London, England, 1802-07-12 00:00:00

the evidence of peisont who were in suet habit's."
That being the rule of common sense, was also
the rule of justice in such cases.
There was no doubt the labourer was worthy
of his hire, by which was meant a just compen-
sation for labour ; but it was equally true,
and equally important to'the Public to know, that
Where a man does not make a specific bargain
before hand, of what he is tb.,.-pay for that which
Ise orders to be done for him, he shall not be made
the prey, or he subject to the extortion of the
personlie employs ; and therefore it was; his Lord-
ship zaid,- that this .case %iv, important in point of
principle. Now, upon this case, it appeared from
the evidence of several persons, qualified, from
their business, to form an opinion upon this sub.
jet, both neighbours of the Defendant, on whose
premises the business was done, and others from
Yorkshire, who lead the same business done for
them, and to whom the difference was only the
difference of the price of of two men for
eighteen days, and which amounted only to twice
eighteen threepenccs ; th'at this charge made by the
Plaintiff upon the Defendant, ought not to have
been above zBl. for the labour, materials, &c. 'Now
between these parties, the real question was this ;
Was this a fair and reasonable, or a very unfair and
enormous charge ? for really there was no measuring
. •
cast between them. The Witnesses for the Defend-
_ ant swore, that 281. were sufficient ; if so, the De-
-fendant had aced liberally, for he had paid in.°.
Court 71. more than was necessary, and what sheaved
,at least the canddur of the Defendant, was, that
after this estimation was made, by these persons,
-It offered either to pay this money, or if the
Plaintiff liked it better, to leave the. whole matter
to arbitration, and if under that arbitration, more
had been ordered, more must have been paid by the,.
Defendant to ,the Plaintiff. It was, under these
circumstances, a question _ for the Jury to decide,
whether 351. or 661. ought to be paid to the Plain-
tiff in this Case. " Once more," said his Lordship,
" I will take thefiberty of saying, to you, Gentle- ,
men, that it is extremely important to all those.
who place confidence in the honesty, the candour,
and integrity of a tradesman, or in any,other per-
son they may employ in any business in which no
specific price is agreed upon, to know—it is im-
portant for tradesmen themselves, who undertake
to perform any work where no specific price is
agreed to be paid to them tolnow, that by the
Law of this land, those who thus employ them,
are not delivered over to them to pay whatever
charges they .may think fit to make, but that the
rule for measuring their charges in such cases, is,
that which others in the same trade charge in the
fair honest pursuit of that trade.7—What such per-
sons {eel to be a reasonable allowance, is the price
which the Law sets upon such labour, and therefore
a Jury, while it gives to the labourer the fair value
of his hire, will take care to secure his employer
also from the, injustice of an exorbitant demand. 7—
The,question therefore in this case is no measuring
cast, but whether 661. or 35% be a proper sum to
be allowed to the Plaintiff for what has been done
in this Case, of which you are the Judges, and
which I leave entiriiy to you.".
The Jury said, that the 351. were full enough in
this Case, and therefore found a Verdi& for the
Defendant.

Mr. GARROw said, he hoped his Lordship thought
thi,, a fit. Case for a Si,ecial Jury.
Lo:d ELLENBOROUGH said, certainly he did,
and therefore certified accordingly.