§ SIR W. FOSTER (Derbyshire, Ilkeston)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the case of a breach of hiring agreement, in which a labourer named James Fletcher had signed an 657 agreement with a farmer named Brock to work for a year, for the sum of 10s. a week, without reading it or understanding its contents, the county magistrates sitting at Caversham ordered the labourer to pay 15s. damages to the farmer for breach of this agreement, in addition to costs, and also made an order on the labourer to return to work; that on 18th June the labourer was again summoned before the magistrates for not having returned to work; and the magistrates on this occasion were advised by their clerk that they had power to imprison the labourer for contempt of court, for not obeying the order to return to work, and informed the farmer that he might take out a summons to obtain further damages from Fletcher; whether magistrates, in such cases as this, have power to make an order on labourers to return to work, and to imprison labourers who do not obey such order; and whether farmers, who have once obtained damages from a labourer for breach of contract, can continue to take legal proceedings against him to recover still further damages, should he not return to work?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTI have made inquiry about this case, and find that the facts are not quite correctly stated in the Question. An order was made on the labourer to pay 15s. as damages for breach of contract, and costs, and the order has now been complied with. The justices were satisfied from the evidence that the defendant's plea that he signed the contract without reading or understanding the contents was untrue. The plaintiff subsequently applied that the defendant might be committed for not having returned to work, but was informed by the justices that they had no power to make the order. The plaintiff thereupon asked whether he could claim further damages, and was told that the justices were of opinion that no further claim should be made, but that if he took out a summons they would fully consider the matter. No such summons has, in fact, been taken out. I am afraid I must decline to express an opinion on the points of law raised in the last two paragraphs of the Question
§ MR. HERMON-HODGE (Oxon, Henley)Is it not a fact that an order was made by the magistrates that this man should return to work; that on the second occasion of his appearance in the court the plaintiff asked the Bench to force the man to do so; did they not decline, not because they did not think they had the power, but because the only way of enforcing the order was by sending the man to prison?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The honourable Member is really arguing the case for the defendant.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTI am informed the facts are quite the reverse. No such order was made, as I have already stated.