Where  a  person,  having  a  house  with  gas  laid  on  in  the  usual
way,  fraudulently  abstracted  gas  from  the  main  before  passing
through  the  meter,  it  was  held  that  the  gas  company  were
entitled  to  charge  for  the  gas,  as  sold  and  delivered  by  them  ;
and  that  in  estimating  the  quantity  the  defendant  might  be
charged  with  the  greatest  amount  that  could  have  passed  into
the  house  in  the  given  time,  according  to  the  maxim  omnia
prcesmnuntur  contra  spoliator  em  ir).  Where  a  person  had  en-
ticed away  an  apprentice  and  appropriated  his  services,  it
was  held  that  the  master  of  the  apprentice  might  waive  the
wrong  and  claim  the  value  of  the  services  as  if  accepted  under
a  contract  to  pay  for  them(s). — Upon  this  principle  a  pas-
senger, travelling  by  an  excursion  train  by  which  no  luggage

[ri)  See  StoTtes  v.  Lewis,  1  T.  K.  20.  Biddle  v.  Levy,  1  Starlde,  20  ;  Rmsell

(o)  British  Empire  Co.  v.  Somes,  E.  v.  Bell,  10  M.  &  W.  352.
B.  &  E.  353  ;  30  L.  J.  Q.  B.  229.  (r)  Birmingham  Gas  Co.  v.  Ratcliff,

{p)  London  School  Boards .  Wright,  L.  R.  6  Ex.  224  ;  40  L.  J.  Ex.  136.
L.  R.   12  Q.  B.  D.   578  ;  53  L.  J.  (s)  Lightly  v.   Clouston,    1   Taunt.
Q.  B.  266.  112  ;   Foster  v.  Stewart,   3  M.  &  S.
{q)  Sill  V.  Ferrott,  3  Taunt.  274  ;  191.
Abbotts  V.  Barry,   2  B.  &  B.   369  ;


44


COJJTEA.CTS  BY  AGREEMENT.
Paet  I.
