Star.
London, England, 1802-07-13 00:00:00

KZAR L. LOr;AN.

Mr. Etssine Rated, that the Plaintiff, Mr. Peter
Rear, was a perfon who made machinery for
threlhing Corn, and leparating the Straw from it
when dm thed,and he was employed by theDcfcn-
dant, Mr. Robert Logan, to make a rack, and to
do foule other alterations in the Machine, which
he had tome years ago bought for that purpole.—
The perfon employed to do this work was one of
the name of *Donald, who would give an account
of the matter, and who was a particular friend of
the Defendant, who lupe' intended molt of the burl-
nefs between the parties, and who introduced them
to each other, and he was alfu the Foreman of the
Plaintiff. The charge which the Plaintiff made
upon the Defendant, was 661. 9s. The Defendant
had paid into Court the fun of 351. Now he (honld
be able to satisfy the Jury, that the materials made
ufe of by the Plaintiff in this work, amounted to
TSS. 7d. and that it would appear, that the
wages of servants employed, and other expences,
amounted to 401. his. 9d. making together pl.
and upwards. So that if the Defendant were to fuc-
ceed by obtainitvg a verdi& upon the payment of
351. into Court, the inftead of having a
living pro 4 upon his butinels, which every man
was entitled to re:peel (or, of comic trade would
be at an cud), ...amid be upwards of 131. aanally
out of pocket in this cafe. He willed the Jory
would rh ink that the IslaiatifThad nut Aced for more
than a living profit, and that they would give him
a verdisct for the balance. There was no pretence
of any detea is th, machinery, no complaint of its
not d pr..pei I y its work. 'l'he whole quelliiin
would be, adv.:hi:l- the plaintiff's bill was real in-
able or c travag:.:it He underliood, howevei,
that firr defendant had got three people to look at
this Ikt:chi:lets., and ime of them might, perhats,
fly they thought other Machinery, for the like ;cur-
role, Lad been dere cheaper, but thi, was nothin;
to the plaintiff; particularly as no notics. had ',ern
given to the plaiutiff in ordet that he might have
an opportunity of either hying relent hinife:l, or
of fi.ndin:,: perfon on hi, behalf, to explain
fottnre of he work he did, and to on; betides,
theie might b.! a d:fference in the price of work, as
well as the noiterials, according to the part of the
country %sheet the wcrk was performed. He thould
e ,11 hi, witocffes to prove this cafe, and then it
would be lot the Jury to fay what the plaintiff de-
f., ved to b

john NW/on:ad wac the Foreman of the
P. -
• Htiff• h.. wag intimate with the defendant, and
thslihis ivork by the order of the defendant. That
521, was the bill' tOr mit-rials, wages of the men,
Ae. for ,foing the work in quaion upon this Ma.
chiner). That there were four men employed
upon the work : that there were no more materials
than s‘:re 0 .retry IM the work, which was done
in the s ery manner: the ssitnels underflood

Som.:. other witncfres rlrtcd tl.!e thi;
cafe to he reafonable; but th :icing a ,liipute as
to the teltimony of fume w- them,
Lord ELLI,NriOROUCH cbf.:rved, that cafes of
this kind were daily occmring, and theretOre it
was wall to have it onderiiood what the ride was
to be that guided the difcueion of them. He took
it to he thi ,—Where work and labour was per firm-
ed, and Frattli.ils found and provided, it ‘a., fair •
to take it for granted, that bath :Le labour was
adequate and the materials tit lot the ptirpole they
were intended for, on ordinary evidence, and that
it fhould then be taken that the party claiming
compenfation, had ailed h,..7.///7., until it fhould
appear on the other fide that there was tome de-
fal in either, and that it retied with the party re-
filling the demand, to Ihew that either the work
was not done, the materials not found as charged,
or that the price was not re:U.011.0)1,, but that where
there is no filecific Eton ,Greed upon, for a given
quantity of work or material„ it flail then be ef-
timatcd at the price which is fair and reafonable,
according to he opinions of thole who are in the
lame way of bo!'.nefs.

On the part of the defendant Mr. Gaut= con-
tended, that the pric : charge) by the plaiwiff in
this cafe was unreatinie!:le ; that the def.:ad:int had
paid 351. into Court, an had, before that time,
offered that fum, whieh was el. more than was
computed to be the full value of it by thole who
imderilood the matter pellealv well, and liad fur-
ther offered, that the plaintiff liked it better to
refer the difputc to arbitration in the nthal man-
ner, the plaintiff to In:dilate one petfon and the
defendant another, and if they dialed in opinion,
they thould clink a til:rd perfon, but which
the plaintiff refilled.
He then called fev'ral witnens to prove that,
in their opinion (and fame of them had the fume
Winer., it', this done for them, within a rule and
a kilt' of the place where this was done) the whole
was not worth above 281. ; lo that, according to
l!iem, the Plaintiff was 71. overpaid, by the fum
of 351. being paid into Court.
Lord ELLENnOROUGH ohfcrved to the Jury,
that this cafe, although not confiderahle in point
of fum, was rather material in paint of principle,
for the queflion which it involved was this—When
a tradciman was employed to do any particular
work, without (pet:dying the pi ice of :that work,
or without fettling beforehand what was to be
the compenfation for that work ; what was to be
the rule by which the charges for fuch work lhould
be meafured ? and upon this his Lord(hip laid he had
no di i.liculty in afferting, that the rule which ought
to be laid down in filch a cafe was thi:., " That in
the abfenee of a fpecific agreement, the mealure of
allowance Ihould be that which wasulually charged
by thoie who were in the habit of pet forming the
ftme fort of work, and that mull be made out by
the evidence of perfons who were in fuch habits."
That being the rule of common auk, WAS 3111;3
the rule of Jullice in fuch cafes.
There was no doubt the labourer was worthy
of his hire, by which was meant a jolt compen-
Cation for labour ; but it was equally true,
and equally important to the Public to know, that
where a man does not make a fpecific bargain
beforehand, of what he is to pay for that which
he orders to be done for him, he lhall-not be made
the prey, or be fubje& to the extortion of the per-
fon he employs; and therefore it was, his Lord-
fhip ftid, that this cafe was important in point of
principle. Now, upon this cafe, it appeared from
the evidence of feveral perfons, qualified, from
their bufinefs, to form an opinion upon this fub-
jedl, both neighbours of the Defendant, on whole
premifes the bufinefs was done, and others from
Yorklhire, who had the fame bufinefs done for
them, and to whom the difference was only the
difference of the price of labour of two men for
eighteen days, and which amounted only to twice
eighteen threepences ; that this charge made by
the Plaintiff upon the Defendant, ought rrt to have
been above 281. for the labour, materials, &c. Now
between thefe parties, the real queßion was this;
Was this a fair and reafonable,or a very unfair and
enormous charge? for really therewas no meafitring
call between them. The witneifes for the Defen-
dant fwore, that 281. were ludicient ; if fo, the De-
fendant had abed liberally, for he had paid into
Court 71. more than was necetfary, and what (hewed
at pall the candour of the DLit:alone, was, that
after this caimation wan made, by thee perfons,
he 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 mull have been paid by the
Defendant to the Plaintilr. It was, under thefe
circumllances, a quation for the Jury to decide,
whether 351. or 661. might to be•paill to the Plain-
tiff in this cafe ? " Once more," faid his Lordthip,
" I will take the liberty of Lying to you, Gentle.
men, that it is extremely important to all thole
who place confidence in the kindly, the candour,
and integrity of a tradefman, or in any other per-
inn they may employ in any bufinefs in which no
Ipecitic pi ice is agreed upon, to know—it is im-
portant for tradefanen themfelves, who undertake
to perform any work where no fpecific price is
agreed to be paid to them to know, that by the
Law of this land, thefe who thus employ them,
.ne not delivered over to them to pay whatever
charges they may think fit to make, but that the
rnle for meafuring their chances in fuch cafes, is,l
that which others in the fame trade charge in the
fair hor.eJL purfuit of that trade.—What filch per.
Eons kel to be a reafonable allowance, is the ;nice
which the Law lets upon inch labour,and therefore
a Jury, while it gite:s to the labourer the fair value
of his hire, will take cue to lecture his employer
alit) from the injudice of an exorbitant demand.'
The qiiellion therefore in thi•• cafe is no me:timing
call, but whether 6(d. or 351. he a proper hum to
be allowed to the Plaintiff for what has been done
in this Cafe, of which you arc the Judges, and
which I leave entirely to you."
The Jury laid, that the 351. were full enough in
this Cafe, and therefore found a Verdi& for the
Delenthr.t.

Nlr.Ga IL ROW faiii,he hoped hip Lordfliip thought
:His a fit Cafe for a Special Jury.
. • 1.. .1

THE KING V. NE ;!. ANnOTHERS.
This was a mill: wl.ich was to have been tried
by a Special jury, but as there was a Common
Jtu y P.umel brought in, and as nobody appeared
frr the nrofecutinn, a Common Jury was (*worn,
and the deLndants were pronounced—Not Guilty.

SEACKAVE 1. fiII:NC:ATI'.
ThiS Was an aaion again(} the defendant, a pub
lican in \Vhitechapel, for negligently leaving his
cellar dap-door open, by which the plaintiff fell
into the cellar and dislocated his fhoulder. The
has of the cafe were limply as follow :—The
brewers had been putting Come butts of beer into
the cellar, kilt after dark, and when they had
done, as they laid, one had gone within doors,
and the other was coiling up his rode. The plain-
tiff, an old man, near teventy, palling by at the
time, fell into the cellar, and dillocated lns Omni-
der. The landlord of the bottle did :„,t behave
ye, y humanely when he heard of the accident, but
told the plaintiff he fhould not have a furgenn
there, but Might go out and get one. 'several
medical men were called, who Allied at the
London Hofpital in reducing the disjointed limb,
and they agreed in (Laing the accident to be a
very bad one, and very fevere iu its nature. It
was ai( proved that the plaintiff could not work
at his 'manna's (a watchmaker) for near three
monrhs. _ _ _

.....
Mr. Serjeant Sur PHARD admitted that the poor
man had met a moil unfortunate accident, but
laid the only quzaion for the Jury t" try was,
whether it happened through any default of the
publican's ? He intifted that all due precaution
was taken, and that a light was placed near, In
as to warn all perfuns palling that way, and that
if the plaintiff had tiled common caution be could'
not have met his accident. Several witnelfes
were called to prove there fatts; but the Learned
Judge faid, that it did not teens to him due cau-
tion had been sled; they ought to have placed
come one near the hole to have prevented the poi-
fibility of any one falling in.—Verdi& for the plain-
tiff—Damages 201.