« AnteriorContinuar »
The people of each of eleven States thus ratified the could not, though eleven consented, bind two, who Constitution - eleven of the thirteen members of the dissented. then confederation and perpetual Union; and two, If, therefore, the words mean "we, the people of the Rhode Island and North Carolina, never ratified until United States” (that is, the people of each State of after the Constitution and new government under it. those united, acting for itself, and all co-acting to the went into full operation, during which interval, from same ratification), ordained the Constitution, it speaks March 4, 1789, to May 29, 1790, in the case of Rhode truth. If otherwise, it speaks falsehood. Island; to November 21, 1789, in the case of North It must be admitted, that the words are susceptible Carolina, the Constitution had no force in either of of either meaning; but that should be adopted, which them. But, moreover, in deference to the articles of is consistent with facts, rather than that, which is confederation, the new Constitution, by its seventh contrary to them; and the trouble was, perhaps, in article, was not to be established at all, unless nine the non-use at that day of the plural form to the word States ratified. Then, five States could have rejected “people.” But when we speak of the people of Europe, for all; or according to the census of 1790, five States, we surely would not be held to mean, they were one with one-seventh of the population of the United | civil body politio. States, could have defeated it as to all.
But a little care in investigation will dispel all In the presence of these facts, if asked, who formed
doubt. the Constitution, can there be but one answer? The “We, the people of the United States " * * * States; not the State legislatures, or States as Govern- “do ordain and establish this Constitution for the ments, but the people of each Stute (as a civil body poli
United States of America." Let us seek the meaning tic), as the delegating authority, contradistinguished of the terms, “United States," and “United States from the delegated authority - the people of the of America.” State - and not its government. This it was, that The articles of confederation under which the memwas to heal the vice of the confederation. The Con- bers of the Convention were then living, give their stitution is adopted by the people of the States. The meaning. confederation by the legislatures of the States. Each “The style of this Confederacy shall be the United was adopted by separate State action, and they differ States of America.” Art. of Confed., $ 1. What Cononly as to the nature of the State authority from federacy? The articles answer: “The confederation which each proceeds.
between the States of New Hampshire" (naming all), But we are now confronted with the famous words eto. Then the “United States of America" means of the preamble to the Constitution. Does it not say “the Confederacy between the States of New Hampthat “we, the people of the United States " * * * shire," eto. “do ordain and establish this Constitution ?" It does, Substitute (algebraically) this meaning in the prebut what do the words mean?
amble to the Constitution, and it will read thus: This obstruction is not formidable. Two proposi We, the people of the Confederacy between the States tions may be laid down.
of New Hampshire, etc., do ordain this Constitution for 1. These words are descriptive of the parties, who the Confederacy between the States of New Hampdo the deed – not of those, who do not.
shire, etc.' We, the people, not the legislatures, of the 2. They describe the party to the deed, not a party Confederated States of New Hampshire, etc., known who shall exist in virtue, or as a result of it.
as the United States of America, not as one civil body If, then, these words describe those who ordained politic, but as a league, an alliance, a confederation the Constitution, we may know their meaning by and union between many civil bodies politic. learning what is the fact.
And this is more obvious from a further fact. The Did the people of the United States, as one people, preamble declares, “We, the people of the United one civil body politic, adopt or ordain the Constitu States," eto., “in order to form a more perfect union," tion? When? Where? How? So far from it, Con etc. More perfect than what? Clearly, than the perpetgress, the only organ of all the States, had nothing to ual union now existing. But that was a confederation. do with its adoption, and were expressly and purposely The preamble does not say, to change it from a union shut out from all intervention in it, except as the of States, into a union of men in one civil body politio; medium of sending it to the true ordaining authority. but to form a more perfect union or confederation beTo iuterpret the preamble then as meaning “ the one tween the United States than now exists, more perfect, people of the United States," is to interpret it as in acting immediately on men and not mediately meaning an historic falsehood, and one which could through States, and more perfect, in resting on the will deceive nobody at the date of its utterance.
of the people, rather than of the legislature of each On the contrary, we know, and have shown, that State. And this is clearly the meaning of Chase, the people of the States, as separate and distinct C. J., in Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 707. civil bodies politic, did ordain it. The legislatures That this is the key to the construction is further of the States elected the Convention, which pro- evident from many facts in the debates of the Conposed it, not Congress; nor all the States, as one, vention. Mad. Pap. 796, etc., 846, 861, 1184, and from in any form. The States voted as such in the Fed others already referred to. eral Convention, as equal States. They signed it in In the first draft of the preamble (Mad. Pap. 735) it convention by States. They declared it was done by read: “We, the people of the States of New Hampthe unanimous consent of States. The people of each shire," etc. (naming all). That form was preserved in State ratified it for itself, alone, bound only by its the report August 6, 1787 (Mad. Pap. 1226), and was own act, and binding no other State. It went into adopted nem. con. August 7, 1787. Mad. Pap. 1243. operation between eleven States, because eleven The committee to revise the style (Mad. Pap. 1532, only ratified, and did not bind two, who refused to 1542-3) of the Constitution, as it had been adopted in ratify; that is, the United States, as an unity (as detail, reported the preamble in form, as it now stands, it is claimed to have been), embracing thirteen States, 1 September 9, 1787, to which no objection was made.
Now, either the committee on style changed the sub- States, he held at Philadelphia, for the sole and exstantial meaning of the preamble without objection press purpose of revising the articles of confederaby the Convention; or, as it stands, it must mean tion, and reporting such alterations and provisions what it did when, naming all the States, it was adopted therein as shall, when agreed to," eto., “render the nem. con. Clearly the latter is the truth.
Federal Constitution adequate," eto. 12 Jour. Cong. But I may be asked, why the change of form. Sev. 13, 14. eral reasons may be assigned.
In the credentials of the delegates to the Federal (a) Rhode Island was named in the first draft as one Convention you will find the same purpose expressed of the States ordaining the Constitution, but was not by every State, to revise the Federal Constitution, to present in the Convention, and might, therefore, never advance the Federal Union, to strengthen the Federal become a party. The change is additionally signifi Government. cant evidence that she could only be self-bound.
Note, that the articles of confederation in these (6) By article 7 of the Constitution of the United recitals are called a Federal Constitution; that the purStates, the Constitution could operate between any | pose was to revise and amend them, not to change nine States, who ratified it, but in none other. In the radically the Union; that the Confederation is called first draft, thirteen were named as parties; and yet a Federal Union-and the purpose was to preserve and none could say which of them would ratify, or which perfect that Federal Union, which was a Confederacy, would be the nine parties to it. The names should and it was to be ratified, before binding any State, by not have been stated until it was known who would that State itself. ratify.
It will not do, therefore, to say that the Constitu(c) New States were to be admitted. It would be |tion is different from the articles of confederation, beawkward to name in the body of the paper a part only cause it is called a Constitution. The articles were so of those who would be parties to it.
called by Congress and all the States, and the Con(d) The words “United States” meant the States vention only was designed to revise and amend them, united in confederation uuder existing articles. The not to change radically the character of the relations use of those words would embrace all who would be between the States. 60 united, under the same name under the new Con In the letter of the Convention to the States, it apstitution. The words “ United States" in the present pears that the Convention only proposed by a different Constitution were imported without definition from organization of government to effect the same general the old articles, where they had the meaning of con purpose. The new government is called a general govfederation and perpetual union between the States ernment, a Federal government; and there is no hint named. And the article 6th of this Constitution, that the confederate nature of the Union had ceased, makes the United States responsible under the Con but only that a change in the functional action of the stitution of the United States for all debts and en government was intended. gagements of the United States under the Confedera In the first Congress the Senate addressed President tion. It is the same United States though bound by Washington, and he replied, both calling the Union new terms. Federalist, No. 43, shows this.
“a Confederated Republic." In confirmation of all this I need only add one passage Mr. Hamilton, in the 9th number of the Federalist, from the famous opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in takes special pains to show that the confederate relaMcCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 403. He is arguing tion will subsist between the States under the Conthat the Constitution was the act of the people, and stitution. He maintains that the Constitution created says, “It is true, they assembled in their several States; a Confederate Republio; that the government is a and where else should they have assembled! No politi Federal government, and that, despite the inequality cal dreamer was ever wild enough to think of break of power of the States in the government, and the fact ing down the lines which separate the States, and of that it operates on individuals immediately and not compounding the American people into one common mediately through States, while the preservation of mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their the separate organisms of the States, though in subStates. But the measures they adopt do not, on that ordination to the general authority of the Union, is account, cease to be the measures of the people them secured; the new Union is " in fact and in theory an selves, or become the measures of the State govern association of States, or a Confederacy." ments."
Massachusetts and New Hampshire in their acts of Now, what is the Constitution thus ordained ?
ratification speak of the Constitution as a "new" It is a Federal compact between the States.
Constitution, “as an explicit and solemu compact," This results from the views already presented. For and of the government as a Federal one. if the people of each State unite upon terms con But the Constitution establishes its own character. tained in a paper, adopted by all as binding upon 1. The preamble declares it to be a Constitution them; this is a Federal compact.
"for the United States of America" (the name of the But I am not left to this deduction. The conven- old Confederation), and the Constitution says it is tion of five States at Annapolis (already referred to) "done by the States." addressed all the States, and called " for an exertion of 2. It declares it (when ratified by the conventions the united virtue and wisdom of all the members of the of nine States) shall be established “between the States Confederacy," and proposed that the States should hold so ratifying the same." This is the same form, as in a convention to devise such further provisions as shall the articles of confederation, which are recited as beappear to them necessary to render the Constitution ing“ between the States of New Hampshire," eto. of the Federal government adequate to the exigencies Compacts, confederations, bind between the parties to of the Union.” Mad. Pap. 702-3. Congress, in re them, and they bind upon each, because made between sponse to a letter of instructions by New York to her all the parties. delegates, recommended “that a convention of dele 3. “ All debts contracted and engagements entered gates, who shall have been appointed by the several ' into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Consti- | borne case earned him a world-wide celebrity. He gave tution as under the Confederation.” C. U. S., art. 6, | up an extensive and lucrative practice to take his seat cl. 1.
on the bench, and, from reading his charge to the jury They were valid against the United States as a Con- | yesterday, one is constrained to fear that he has not federacy. They are valid against the same, though yet been able to sink the advocate in the judge. Cerunder the Constitution.
tainly his argument against the prisoners was far more In this clause the legal succession of the United effectual than that of the Attorney-General. States under the Constitution to the United States Each of the four prisoners was represented by sepaunder the Confederation is established. By the pre rate counsel, and all were defended with zeal and amble, ordaining a more perfect union than the former ability. But, uufortunately for the clients, the only one, the political organism of the United States under hope of their escape lay in confusing the minds of the the two systems, is shown to be the same. And by the jury with conflicting technical evidence, and in imreasoning of the 43d number of the Federalist as to peaching the credibility of the government's principal the debts and engagements of the United States uuder witness. It was by clearly setting forth his own conthe Confederation, the moral obligation of the gov victions on every doubtful point, while at the same ernment under the two systems is clearly maintained. time commending to the jury their duty to follow their So that the absolute identity of the United States, own convictions, that Mr. Hawkins rendered such eflegally, politically and morally, under the Confed
fectual help to the counsel for the prosecution. eration, and the Constitution cannot be doubted.
The charge covers nine solid columns of the Times 4. The Constitution is full of stipulations between over 20,000 words. Its delivery was commenced at the States, which are permanent. All limitations on 11.20 A. M., and completed at 9.40 P. M. It is a masState power. Art. 1, $ 10; the provisions as to faith terpiece of clear and connected statement, but the and credit to each other's records and acts; as to re
end and inevitable effect of every sentence is to destroy ciprocal privileges of citizenship; as to surrender of the labors of defendants' counsel; and where law and persons held to service; as to extradition of crim facts, simply stated, do not suffice, the judge's opinions inals; are all stipulations of a compact between the and inferences are never concealed. In short, it States.
would be impossible to imagine a case wherein the The Constitution is then a Federal compact between consciences of the jurymen would be so thoroughly States, ordained and established by each of them for relieved of duty by that of the judge. itself and in federal union with others.
The result was that in one hour and twenty-five (To be concluded.)
minutes the jury brought in a verdict of “guilty" against all of the four prisoners, altbough nine men out
of ten, skilled or simple, were confident that there THE PENGE MURDER CASE.
would be serious difficulty in reaching a verdict of LONDON, Sept. 27, 1877. “murder” at all, and that, if such verdict could be IN one of my letters, in the spring of this year, I had found, it certainly would not include the female prisToccasion to draw a contrast between the crime of oners. murder in England and America, and I took, as a Louis Stanton and his paramour Alice Rhodes, and somewhat exaggerated illustration of the brutal nature Patrick Stanton and his wife Elizabeth Rhodes, – of the English murderer, a case which was then new brothers and sisters, – received sentence of death. Of to public attention, but which subsequently became their guilt of the crime of murder, willful and delib. notorious under the name of "The Penge Mystery." erate, and with the most cruel and barbarous accessaLast night the “mystery" dropped out of the case, ries that can be imagined, scarcely an intelligent memand, by the verdict of the jury, it will hereafter be | ber of this community entertains a particle of moral known as “The Penge Murder Case.".
doubt. But I do not believe that, if the judge's The trial at the Old Bailey (to which the venue was charge had been confined within the limits of a mere changed from the Maidstone Assizes) was originally statement of the law and summary of evidence, a jury set down for the 7th of August, and the Lord Chief could have been found to convict them. Justice came to town from holding the Assizes at That the case is not free from perplexity, even now, Croydon, for the purpose of presiding. But the coun- | after it has been decided and sentence passed, you sel for defendants asked for further time to prepare may gather from the following editorial reflections in their case, on the ground that important medical evi to-day's Times: dence would be at their command later, which could
It is impossible to survey the evidence in this cause not be had at that time, because of the absence of the
without reflecting on the peculiarity of our rule of witnesses; and the Attorney-General declined to oppose evidence which shuts the mouths of the prisoners at a the application for delay; so that the Chief-Justice had
criminal trial. After the medical evidence, the chief no option about granting it. He expressed disappoint
question in the case was the truthfulness or the accu
racy of Clara Browu. This question could hardly have ment at this result, and said, in substance, tbat he remained a matter of doubt if the four prisoners in would have ruled otherwise on even a show of opposi the dock could have been each submitted to examination from Sir Johu Holker. It was observed at the
tion. The prisoners and Clara Brown are the only
living persons who know what really happened during time that Chief Justice Cockburn has a mania for
these previous months, but four of them were absotrying celebrated criminal cases, and it looked, indeed, lutely silenced by the forms of our procedure. As it as if he had set his heart on this one, and felt the dis is, the jury have had to grope their way as best they
could. They had to balance, on the one hand, the vaappointment keenly.
rious expedients to which the efforts of the prisoners In the event, Mr. Justice Hawkins “fleshed his
to conceal the social infamy of their position might maiden sword” on the Penge murderers, – this being give rise, the liability to misconstruction which the his first important case since his appointment last
malice, or the incapacity, or self-interested alarms of
Clara Brown might expose them, and on the other, spring. This is the celebrated ex-Queen's counsel,
the difficulty of accounting for the condition in which Mr. Henry Hawkins, whose connection with the Tich- ' Harriet Staunton was found, while iv the custody of those responsible for her proper care, and who had an The learned judge ruled against the defendant with evident interest in violating that duty so as to destroy
respect to the “common employment,” and the deher life. To determine the problem when the evil imulse of which the jury seem to have assumed the ex
ceased baving undertaken the risk of the Northeastistence became active so as to amount to the actual ern traffic as well as that of the Great Northern Railguilt of murder was an inquiry of singular difficulty.
way, and a verdict was found and entered for the
plaintiff for £600, which was apportioned between the EMPLOYMENT OF SERVANT BY JOINT MAS widow and her children as follows: £200 to the widow TERS.
and £100 to each of the children. Leave was at the
same time reserved to the defendant to move to enter ENGLISH HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, EXCHEQUER
the verdict for itself on the above grounds, the DIVISION, JUNE 1, 1877.
court to have power to draw inferences of fact. The
circumstances and facts of the case as they appeared SWAINSON V. NORTHEASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY,
in evidence at the trial are fully and sufficiently stated 37 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 102.
in the judgment of the court. T. was employed as a signalman by the G. Railway Company at a station which abutted upon a station of the
Crompton and Grainger (with whom was C. Russell, N. Railway Company. The business of T. was common to both stations, and was to signal the trains of both Q. C.), for defendant for the motion. companies, and he was called one of the joint-station staff, all of whom were appointed and paid by the G.
Waddy, Q. C., Willis, Q. C., and Wilberforce, for Company, but the expense of their salaries was borne plaintiff, contra. equally by the two companies. Hold, that he was employed as the servant of both companies, and the N. PollOCK, B. This action was brought by the plainCompany was not liable for his death through the negligence of one of its servants.
tiff, who was the widow of Thomas Swainson, 'a signalVOTION by defendant to enter a verdict. This was
man, in the employment of the defendants company, M an action by the plaintiff, the widow of one Thos.
and was brought by her against the defendants to reSwainson, who, at the time of his death, was a signal
cover damages from them for the death of her husman in the employment of the Great Northern Rail
band, who was killed by the negligence of an engine way Company, and was brought by her to recover com
driver in their service. The trial took place before pensation in damages for herself and her children by
my late brother Quain, at the Middlesex Trinity Sitreason of the death of her said husband through, as
tings, in 1877, when the following facts were proved: she alleged, the negligence of an engine driver in the
Adjoining Wellington street, Leeds, are two railway service and employ of the defendant. The facts were
stations -- the one belonging to the Great Northern briefly as follows: The Leeds station of the Great
Railway Company and the other to the Northeastern
Railway Company. These stations abut upon each Northern Railway Company abutted upon a station of the defendant, the Northeastern Railway Company.
other, and are approached from the south by lines of The stations were approached by lines of rails, two of
rails, two of which belong to each of these companies, which belonged to each of the companies, and the en
the entrance and exit for these stations being goytrances and exits of trains were governed by signals
erned by signals and points, which are worked by sig.
nalmen, whose duty is common to both stations. The worked by signalmen, whose duty was common to both stations. The deceased was one of these signal
deceased man, Swainson, was one of these signalmen,
and he had acted for four years in the same position. men, and was engaged and paid by the Great Northern Company and wore their uniform; and, though
He was engaged and paid by the Great Northern Railhe had not, at the time of his appointment, been made
way Company, and wore their uniform, and was not
made aware at the time of his appointment that he aware that he was a joint servant, yet his duty was to
was a joint servant; but, in fact, his duty was to atattend to the signaling of the Northeastern trains as
tend to the Northeastern trains as well as to the well as to that of the Great Northern trains, and he had done so for four years. As between the two com
Great Northern trains as to points and signals, when
ever any engines or trucks had to be transferred from panies he was called one of the joint-station staff,"
the rails of one company to those of the other. As all of whom were engaged and paid by the Great North
between the two companies, Swainson, the deceased, ern Company, but their salaries were treated as a joint
was one of what was called the "joint-station staff,” charge, and borne equally by the two companies. The
all of whom were engaged and paid by the Great deceased, while in the discharge of his duty as one of
Northern Railway Company. The cost of their salasuch signalmen, was negligently knocked down and
ries was treated as a joint charge, and was borne killed by an engine belonging to the Northeastern
equally by the two companies, and when the deceased Company and driven by one of its engine drivers.
received his wages at the end of each week he signed At the trial before Quain, J., and a jury, at the
a pay sheet, which was headed, “Great Northern Railsittings for Middlesex, in June, 1870, the counsel for
way, Traffio Department, Pay Bill, Joint-Station the defendants, at the conclusion of the case and the
Staff.” On the 7th May, 1875, Swainson, in the disevidence, contended that there was no evidence to go charge of his duty, was standing on the six-foot space to the jury of liability on the part of the defendant;
between the Great Northern and the Northeastern dethat if there was any negligence in the driver of the
parture lines. A Northeastern engine came toward Northeastern Railway engine, such driver and the the station on the Great Northern arrival rails with deceased man were engaged in a common employ some Great Northern coal trucks, and Swainson sigment;" that the deceased was employed by the North naled to the driver to go on to the Northeastern deeastern Railway Company, and that at all events his parture line. The driver obeyed and went on to that duties were to attend to the Northeastern trains and | line until he passed some points, when he reversed his signals, and that the risk that resulted in his death engine and backed out again, having a van before the was one of the risks incidental to his employment, engine which obscured his view of the line. Swainand one of the consequences of the duty which he son was then looking in the other direction, watchhad undertaken.
ing a train which was coming from the south, and,
failing to observe the engine and van coming out, he 30; L. R., 1 Scotch App. 326, it was held that the maswas struck by the step of the van, knocked down and ter was protected, although the fellow-servant, whose killed. Evidence was given on the part of the plain negligence caused the injury, was a manager. So in tiffs that the engine driver had not turned on his Morgan v. The l'ale of Neath Railway Company, 18 L. whistle when he backed out, and also that it was un T. Rep. (N. S.) 564; 5 B. & S. 570 and 736; L. R., 1 Q. safe to back out with the van before the engine. At B. 149; and Lovell v. Howell, 34 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 183; the close of the case my learned brother Quain left 45 L. J. 387, C. P.; L. R., 1 C. P. D. 161, where the two questions to the jury — first, was there negligence work in which the two servants were engaged was on the part of the driver of the defendants' engine? | wholly dissimilar. In all these cases there was not and, secondly, was there contributory negligence on only a common employment, that is, an employment the part of the deceased man Swainson? The jury with a common object, but also common service answered the first of these questions in the affirmative that is, service under one master. Dicta are no doubt, and the second in the uegative, and a verdict was ac however, to be found in some of the cases, which tend cordingly entered for the plaintiffs for £600, with | to suggest that the principle ought to be app'ied to leave to the defendants to move to enter it for them cases in which the element of common service may be selves on the ground that the driver of the engine and wanting. There is great difficulty in so holding, beSwainson, the deceased, were engaged in a common cause, when it is said that the servant undertakes the employment, and that the risk which resulted in risk of the negligent acts of his fellow-servant, the Swainson's death was incidental to the employment, question arises, “Undertakes to whom?" and the the contingencies of which he had undertaken. We proposition must, we think, be limited by confining see no ground for disturbing this verdict as being the undertaking to the master of the servant, who is against the weight of evidence upon either question. supposed to give it. It cannot, we think, reasonably The counsel for the defendants raised, however, the be extended to strangers, or those who, though har. further point, namely, that the driver of the engine ing some interest in a joint operation, are not in some and Swainson, the deceased, were engaged in a com sort the masters of the person injured. It is not, mon employment, and that the risk which resulted in however, necessary in the view which we take of this Swainson's death was incidental to that employment, case to pursue this further. Before dismissing the the consequences of which he had undertaken. The cases, however, it is right to notice two, namely: l'oss learned judge ruled against the defendants upon this v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, point, but reserved leave to move the court, having 2 H. & N. 728; 27 L. J. 249, Ex., and Warburton v. The power to draw inferences of fact. The case was fully Great IVestern Railway Company, 15 L. T. Rep. (N. and ably argued before us, and upon the facts and S.) 361; 36 L. J. 9, Ex.; L. R., 2 Ex. 30, which were findings of the jury it is clear that an action would cited by Mr. Waddy in favor of the plaintiffs as govwell lie against the driver of the engine, by whose erning the present case. In the former of these cases negligent act the death of Swainson was occasioned. a man named Voss, a blacksmith, in the employment Whether the relation of Swaiuson to the defendants of the East Lancashire Railway Company, was workwas such that this action can be maintained against ing at one of their engines, which was on their siding at them is a question the solution of which is more diffi the Liverpool Station, when an engine belonging to the cult, and requires a careful consideration both of the defendants, and driven by one of their drivers, pushed facts proved, and of the law properly applicable to some wagons into the siding, and so Voss was killed. them. It will be well, in the first place, to see what The station where the deceased man was working at is the principle affecting this case which can be gath the time of the accident was in the joint occupation ered from authority. Up to a certain point this is of the defendants and the East Lancashire Company; clear, that wherever the person injured, and he by but the deceased was the servant of the latter comwhose negligent act the injury is occasioned, are en pany, and not of the defendants, and upon this ground gaged in a common employment in the service of the the court held the defendants were liable. In Warsame master, no action will lie against the master, if burton v. The Great Western Railway Company, ubi sup., he be innocent of any personal negligence. The neg- the facts as stated in the judgment of the court were ligence of a fellow-servant is taken to be one of the as follows: The plaintiff was a servant in the employ risks which a servant, as between himself and bis of the London and Northwestern Railway Company, master, undertakes when he enters into the service. and was at work in the Victoria Station at ManchesThis is thoroughly established by the cases of Priestley ter, when an engine driver in the employ of the dev. Fowler, 3 M. & W.; 17 L. J. (N. S.) 42, Ex.; Hutch fendants, the Great Western Railway Company, havinson v. The York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway ing entered the station, shunted a train belonging to Company, 5 Ex. 343; 19 L. J. 296, Ex., and other cases. the defendants from one part of the station to anIn Wiggett v. Fox, 11 Ex. 832; 25 L. J. 185, Ex., the other, and in so doing was guilty of the negligence rule was held to apply where Wiggett, the person in complained of. The station was the property of the jured, was the servant of Moss, a piece-worker, or sub London and Northwestern Railway Company, and contractor, and he by whose negligence the injury was was used in conmon by the plaintiff's employers and occasioned was in the immediate employ of the de- the defendants, and other companies. By an arrangefendants; but in that case it is to be observed that, | ment between these companies the defendants' enalthough Wiggett was engaged by the piece-worker, it gine driver ought to have awaited a signal from an was a part of the arrangement between the latter and officer of the London and Northwestern Railway the defendant that the workmen should be paid their Company before he shunted the train into the siding: weekly wages by the defendant, so that, as was said but without doing so, and without any signal at all, by Martin, B., in the course of the argument, Moss he shunted the train, and negligently caused the inwas not a sub-contractor in the sense that an action jury in question to the plaintiff. Upon these facts would lie against him by a stranger. In Wilson v. | the court say, “We are of opinion that inasmuch as Merry, in the House of Lords, 19 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) the injury sustained by the plaintiff was occasioned