AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIX, Issue 8110, 3 April 1906, Page 6

AN ILLEGAL CONTRACT.

REESE v. BAILLIE AND CO,

DECISION Ob' THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

Judgment >u the case of l.'eese v. A. Baillie and Co. was given, yesterday morning, in Wellington, by Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice. ( The case was an appeal from the decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate at Pahiatua. Plaintiff entered the services of tbo defendants (a firm of printers) when he was 13 years aud 2 months old, and he continued working for wages, there being no contract of apprentioeship. In June, 1902, defendants were made patties to an Arbitration Court Awaid, which fixed a minimum rate of wages. It doos not appear (His Honour's judgment states) that any special or express bargain or contract was made between the plaintiff find defendants after this Award was in mil 0, and ulaiti tiff continued in defendants' service, ami received less wages than those fixed by tho Award. He made no objection to the wage be received, but he says that he did not know the terms of the Award. Ho received varying wages from time to time, but always at a loss rate than the minimum wages named in the Award. In July, 1904, the matter came before the Arbitration Court, when defendants were Sued £lO. No provision wis made that the plaintiff shoft'd get any part of the fine, In August. 1904, plaintiff left defendants' employ, and then commenced an action to recover £sl 16s, tho difference between the wages he received and tho minimum rates specified in the Award. The Magistrate gavo judgment for defendant, and thereupon plaintiff appealed to the Su promo Court. It was contended (for respondents) that as appellant had without question received hi« wages, he could not. now bo heard to complain that he had not received full wages; that the Court must, hold that the contraofc between the parties bad been carried out, and that therefore | the appellant had no remedy. It j was, also, said that the Award could not bo sued on, and that the breach of an award could not tie enforced save in the Arbitration Court. Further, that if the contract was illegal, it was not open to the respondent to recover under it, as the parties were "in pari delicto." On the other side, it was contended that the Industrial Award created a statutory right to a specific wage; socondly, that it created a status,. and prohibited contracts for wages below the minimum rate fixed by the Award. His Honour was of opinion that the parties could not contract for services at a lower wage than the Award seta out The Arbitration Court really fixed tbo status of a workman, and prohibited contracts inconsistent with that status. Therefore appellant and respondent could not make a contract at a lower rate than the Arbitration Court fixed. The contention that appellant was barred from remedy because he was "in pari delicto" would have applied if the matter of the contract was unlawful. But that was not the case here. If it were so, the oase would be that even if no wages had been paid to him fbr three months, he could not have recovered anything. The appellant was doing a lawful work. What was illegal was the fixing of the wage contrary to the decision of the Arbitration Court, and the respondents were seeking to-rely upon an illegal condition which they had introduced into an otherwise lawful contract. The right of a workman to make a contract was exceedingly limited; the right of free contract was taken away from the womer, and he was now placed in a condition of servitude or status—and the employer must conform to that condition. This relationship would especially bo the case when the workman was an infant. Thus Reese could recover, aud the appeal must be allowed. His Honour need not point out that ap poll ant had no status in tho Arbi tration Court, and had no nower to pursue any recdedy in that Court. Judgment would be for the amount claimed, with costs in the Court below and £6 6a for argument in the Supreme Court. In coming to his decision, his Honour was of opinion that the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court £bad not haen invaded. The faot that the Arbitration Court, when it fined respondents, did not order that any part of the fine go t<ji Reese could not affect the legal question invulved in the appeal. Appellant was entitled to the wages fixed in the Award. Dr Findlay .(instructed by Messrs Bunny and Dolan, solicitors, Masterton) appeared for appellant, and Mr A. L. Herdman (instructed by Messrs Smith and McSherry, solicitors, Pahiatua) for defendant company.