
    
      TIETJEN vs. PENNIMAN.
    
    Journeymen printers are laborers within the meaning of the Civil Code, art. 3499.
    And their wages are prescribed by the lapse of one year.
    
      An amicable demand is still required, although the Code of Practice dispenses with a written one.
    printer3Uravemia-the” meanbghS the Civil Code, art. 3499, and prescribed by the apse of one year
    Appeal from the court of the parish and city of New- Orleans.
    This suit was brought on the 9th November, 1829, to recover fron the defendant the amount of wages due the plaintiff, as a journeyman printer, from July 1828 up to January 1829. The defendant plead the general issue, prescription and the want of an amicable demand.— There was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Roselius, for appellant; Nixon, for appellee.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The plantiff claims wages as a journeyman printer. The general issue and prescription were pleaded, The plaintiff had judgment and the defendant appealed.

His counsel has shown that the parish Judge disallowed theprescriptionofoneyear, under the Civil Code, 3499. We think the T . . . . , , Judge erred;journeymen printers are labour-ers and workmen within the meaning of the artjcje ^g C0(Je invoked.

The Judge disallowed the plaintiff’s claim for costs, it appearing that no amicable de-man<l was made, and the appellee’s counsel has contended that the Code of Practice has dispensed with the demand in writing, and the act of 1828 has repealed the part of the act of 1813, under which a demand was necessary in writing or otherwise.

An amicable demand is stm required, altho’ the code ofPrac-tice dispenses with a written

Ttr , . We thuk the parish Judge did not err; # the proviso of the Code of Practice providing that an amicable demand is not necessary, is a negative, pregnant with the affirmative, that a parol demand is so.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgmentof the parish court be annulled, avoided and reversed; and that the plain tiff recover from the defendant one hundred and twenty-eight dollars for fifty-six days work, from the 10th of November, 1828,. to the 5th January, 1829, and that he pay costs in both courts.  