SARAH J. SPENCER vs. JOHN SPENCER.

CONTRACT for work done by the plaintiff for the defendant for twelve years from August, 1888, to August, 1900, at $2 per week. Writ dated February 26, 1901.

At the trial in the Superior Court before Hopkins, J., it appeared, that the plaintiff was an unmarried woman and a sister of the defendant, who was a wool sorter by trade. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show, that the defendant's wife died in 1885, leaving him with four children, the oldest being then ten years of age; that the defendant requested the plaintiff to come and live with him, to keep his house and take care of his children, and agreed to pay her therefor $2 per week; that she went as requested and worked for him and he paid her in full at the promised rate for two and one half years, until in 1888 an illness incapacitated him for further labor at his trade; that she continued to live in his house and work for him until she left, in August, 1900, and that no further payments were made to her except one of $5, in December, 1900; that after the illness of the defendant she went out to work, sometimes two, sometimes three, and sometimes four days a week, and that she used the money so earned for the support of the defendant and his children; that on the days when she went out to work, she did the work of the defendant's household before and after returning from work outside.

Page 472

There was evidence offered by the defendant tending to show, that after the death of his wife, in 1885, his sister, the plaintiff, said she wanted a home and did not want his children to have a stepmother; that he engaged her as she testified, and paid her in full up to the time he was taken sick with hemorrhages from the lungs, which incapacitated him for work at his trade; that he had no income from which to pay the plaintiff after he ceased to work at his trade, except the rent of his houses, and that she knew of that fact; that he never paid her anything after that and that he did not pay her $5 in December, 1900; that several years after he was taken sick the plaintiff was angry with him and he sent his son with $8 to her which she refused to take; that from the time of his sickness to the time she left his house in August, 1900, she never asked or demanded of him any sum of money for her work; that during all that time she occupied exclusively and kept the key of a room in his house; that during all that time she went out at her pleasure to work for others, sometimes during the spring and fall, the whole week at a time, at other times of the year not so often, but doing all the work she could get, sometimes three, four or five days in the week, going after breakfast in the early morning and returning according to where she was working, sometimes at eight o'clock at night; that he had nothing to do about this work or her earnings; that after his sickness, in 1888, he was about the house and able, with the assistance of his children, to do all that was necessary to be done, and that his sister, the plaintiff, did only that which she saw fit to do.

The judge ruled that the plaintiff could not recover for any services rendered more than six years before the date of the writ, and among other instructions, to which no exception was taken, instructed the jury that, in an action for services rendered the plaintiff could not recover unless the jury found that the person rendering the services expected to be paid for them, and believed that the person receiving them knew that payment was expected for them, and also, that the person receiving the services expected to pay for them and believed that the person rendering the services expected to have pay for them.

The jury found for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.

Page 473

J. H. Vahey, C. H. Innes & J. B. Ferber, for the plaintiff.

J. F. McDonald & D. B. Ruggles, for the defendant.