Precis of the caes of David Hann v Willam Way and Henry Way for breach of contract and £1 3s 0d damages - Bridport County Court, 3 Oct 1868
David Hann alleged that in the middle of July he had made a verbal agreement with WIlliam Way and others to get seed from 27 acres of flax. at 3s per acre. William worked July and August and in between was to tie flax and do associated jobs at 10s per wekk plus drink and to do this until the job was finished. He was also to winnow the seed for 8d per week. He was given 5s on account. A few days later Heny asked to go on with the others. david expressed surprise he had asked considering how he had served him the previous year. Henry said that he would work with the others until the job was done but worked util the end of AUgust when he left in debt and without notice. Both had left having been overdrawn on their accounts and David had to pay others to complete the work. There had also been considerable damage done to his flax. He said that he hadn't let ARthur Hann organise the work and decide who to employ or lay off and he didn't tell Henry the terms of the contract. This was confirmed by Arthur (who was David's foreman) aho stated that William was 11 s 10d overdrawn and Henry by nearly 10s. This was corroborated by Robert Hawker. Both defendants denied the agreemant. WIlliam was sworn and warned not to perjure himself. He said that he had never taken any work on and that when David and Arthur had walked down the field he heard David say 'you have done my work for me well already, and I shall let all the work to you, and you shall take on and payy off who you like'. Arthur paid off two men and said he would like William to work and went to see David. When he returned he said that David would only pay 8s per acre and 8d per week for winnowingseed. William allegedly told him it was not enough. David said that Arthur was the witnesses master and he should have nothing to do with him.. The magistrates found William guilty and ordered him to pay £1 10s 0d including damages and costs, but Henry had not made a contract, so the case against him was dismissed. William siad he could not pay and was threatened with one moth in prison to which he replied that he could pay 1s per week but that would not be enough for them I di not matter however as Henry paid the money for him