Cave vs William – clr volume 3 page 047

In the case between the complainant enforcing Ordinance No. 11 of 1865 and a machine-ruler employed in a printing office, the court addressed the issue of whether a workman engaged on a monthly contract qualifies as a “journeyman artificer” within the meaning of the statute. It was determined that the statutory language encompasses skilled employees contracted on both daily and monthly bases, and such contractual arrangements do not exclude the status of journeyman artificer. The magistrate’s acquittal, based on the absence of a fixed term of engagement, was set aside. The principle reaffirmed is that the contractual period—daily or monthly—does not remove an employee from the statutory definition when the nature of the work and contract substantiate the classification. Reliance was placed