C. A. 1905 GREAT RAILWAY v. DAWSON. S. T. Evans, K.C., and P. T. Blackwell, for the workman's dependants. The authorities clearly shew that the county court judge was wrong in excluding from consideration the NORTHERN fact that, in addition to the wages paid him in money, the workman enjoyed the use of clothing provided for him by the company. The fact that the property in the uniform did not pass to him, and that, if he left the service of the company, he would have to deliver it up, might be material under some circumstances to the question of the quantum to be allowed, but is not material in point of principle. The use of the uniform must be of value to the workman, because but for it. he would have to provide more clothing for himself. [They cited Noel v. Redruth Foundry Co. (1); Pomphrey v. Southwark Press (2); Houghton v. Sutton Heath and Lee Green Collieries Co. (3); Abram Coal Co. v. Southern (4); Sharpe v. Midland Ry. Co. (5)] Basil Watson (Montague Lush, K.C., with him), for the company. The workman cannot be said to have been given the use of the uniform as part of his wages. He was required by the company to wear it as part of his duty, while at work, for their convenience and for the purpose of his identification as an official of the company. The cases of Houghton v. Sutton Heath and Lea Green Collieries Co. (3) and Abram Coal Co. v. Southern (4) were cases in which it was sought to make deductions from the wages actually paid in money to a workman in respect of the use of tools or other matters supplied to him by the employers, and therefore differed from the present case. It was held, however, in the latter case that "earnings in the Act means the sum which the workman gets for his work when he comes to it properly equipped according to the general understanding and practice in that particular trade. If that definition is correct, the value of the uniform which formed part of the guard's equipment is not part of his earnings. The question raised before the county court judge was really whether the value of the uniform was to be added (1) [1896] 1 Q. B. 453, at p. 456. (4) [1903] A. C. 306. (5) [1903] 2 K. B. 26; [1904] A. C. 349. to the wages in money, and he rightly held that, as the property in the uniform did not pass to the workman, it ought not to be added to the wages. S. T. Evans, K.C., in reply. On the facts no distinction. really arose between the value of the uniform and the value of the use of it to the workman. The deceased had been in the service of the company for many years, and the value of the clothes of which he had the use may be regarded as exhausted by wear. COLLINS M.R. This is an appeal by the dependants of a deceased workman from the decision of a county court judge, the question being as to the amount of compensation to which the dependants were entitled in consequence of the workman's death. There was no doubt that they were entitled to compensation to the extent of 1937. 10s. 2d., having regard to the aggregate amount of the wages paid to the workman in money during the three years next before the injury which occasioned his death; but it was said on behalf of the dependants that, in addition to those wages, the workman had received from the company, his employers, clothing to the value of 71. during those years. The learned county court judge has rejected the value of that clothing as a factor in estimating the amount of the workman's earnings, on the ground apparently that by the terms of the company's regulations the property in the clothes did not pass to the workman. I do not think that was an adequate ground for excluding the suggested factor from consideration. If the workman received as part of the emoluments of his employment the use of the clothing, then the value of that use was, as it appears to me, being earned by him as part of those emoluments, and, upon the authorities, I think it must be taken into consideration. I can conceive of cases in which it might be suggested that the actual value of the use of clothing would be nothing, because the clothing might be of such a nature that the use of it could not be considered as a privilege, but the present is not a case of that kind. In this case during the three years prior to the accident the deceased workman appears to have been allowed by his employers to C. A. 1905 GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY V. DAWSON. C. A. 1905 GREAT RAILWAY v. DAWSON. Collins M.R. have the use of clothing, which he did use to the extent of the value assumed by both parties to represent the price of the clothing, which was probably less than what the workman NORTHERN would have had to pay if he had himself provided it. I think that must be regarded as an emolument which he received, in addition to his money wages, in return for his services, and which according to the authorities must be taken into account in estimating his earnings. I do not think that it is necessary in this case to go into any distinction between the value of the clothes themselves and the value of the use of them. In the course of the period during which the clothes were in this case. used, their original value may be regarded as pretty well exhausted, and practically the value of the clothes themselves and the value of the use of them may be regarded as represented by the same amount. Though it may be right to say that, strictly speaking, it is the value of the use of the clothes, and not the value of the clothes themselves, that must be considered in such a case, in the present case there is really no distinction between them. Therefore I think that the amount taken as their cost in this case ought to be added to the amount received by the workman in money, and this appeal must be allowed. MATHEW L.J. I am of the same opinion. The strict measure of compensation in this case would, I think, be the sum saved to the workman by reason of his having the use of uniform, and so avoiding the wear and tear which would be occasioned to the ordinary costume of a man in his position. There is in this case however no necessity to go into any minute calculations on the subject, because it was conceded at the trial that the amount of 77., which was agreed to be the cost of the uniform, substantially represents the amount which must be added to the wages, if the contention for the dependants is correct. With regard to that amount, I feel compelled to come to the conclusion that the county court judge was wrong, and the appeal must be allowed. COZENS-HARDY L.J. I agree. It must, I think, upon the authorities, be taken to be a fallacy that the wages in money are necessarily to be the measure of the workman's earnings for the purposes of the Act. It cannot be doubted, for instance, that, if a workman is, in addition to his wages in money, allowed to occupy a house belonging to his employer, the value of that occupation must generally be considered as part of his earnings, because the necessary inference would be that, but for this privilege, the amount of his wages in money would be higher. Again, in the case of a workman required when on duty to wear uniform of a pattern approved by his employers, it appears to me obvious that the privilege of being given the use of such a uniform by the employers, and thereby relieved from the necessity of paying for it out of his own pocket, must be considered as an additional emolument to be taken into account in estimating his earnings. I agree that the true test in such a case is not what the uniform would cost the employers, but the value to the workman of the privilege of using it when on duty. But in this case that distinction becomes immaterial, because any difficulty which might arise therefrom is removed by the fact that under the circumstances the amount of 7., which was the cost of the uniform, may fairly be taken as representing the value of the use of it. The judgment of the county court judge appears to have proceeded solely on the ground that the property in the uniform did not pass to the workman. For the reasons which have been given I do not think that is the true test. Appeal allowed. Solicitors for appellants: Kingsford, Dorman & Co., for H. B. Hartley, Peterborough. Solicitor for respondents: R. Hill Dawe. C. A. 1905 GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY v. DAWSON. Cozeus-Hardy E. L. C. A. 1905 Jan. 16. [IN THE COURT OF APPEAL.] CASTLE SPINNING COMPANY, LIMITED v. ATKINSON. Employer and Workman Workmen's Compensation Redemption of It is not competent, under clause 13 of the First Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, for employers to apply for redemption of their liability to make weekly payments by way of compensation subject to a limit specified in the application of the sum to be payable for redemption; and a county court judge has no jurisdiction to entertain an application so limited. APPEAL against the award of the judge of the county court of Ashton-under-Lyne upon an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897. Injury having been occasioned to a workman through an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment, his employers by agreement paid him a weekly sum of 11. from the period of a fortnight after the accident. After these payments had continued for about a year, the employers filed a request for arbitration in the county court, asking for a review and termination, or diminution, or for redemption limited to the amount thereinafter set forth, of the weekly payment. The particulars annexed to the request were as follows: "The applicants say that the respondent is no longer totally incapacitated for work by the said accident, and they therefore ask for an order terminating or reducing the said weekly payment; alternatively the applicants seek to have the said weekly payments redeemed by the payment of a sum not exceeding 1507., which sum the applicants are willing to pay the respondent by way of redemption." Upon the case coming on for hearing, the county court judge refused to order any diminution of the amount of the weekly payments. As regards the application to redeem the liability for the same, the |