MASTER AND SERVANT. This comprehensive term in cludes all forms of occupation in which a person for valuable con sideration hires out his services in a subordinate capacity to another for the purpose of helping that other in the performance of some duty or object for which assistance is either necessary or desirable. The contract need not be reduced into writing unless by the terms of the bargain the employment is to extend beyond a year, in which case, a written agreement is necessary, under s. 4 of the Statute of Frauds (Dollar v. Parkington, 1901, 84 L. J. Consequently, a contract of service for a period of more than one year, terminable at any time by six months' notice, is un enforceable unless there be a memorandum in writing (Hanau v. Erlich, 1912, A.C. 39). Nor will part performance take the case out of the statute. It seems, however, that a contract of hiring for a year certain need not be evidenced by writing unless it is to commence at a future date which would extend the term of employment beyond the year. Where the agreement is in writing, the consideration for the servant's promise to remain in the mas ter's employ should appear on the face of the document and also the period during which the hiring is to continue and the length of notice necessary for its termination. But in a general hiring by parol the nature of the employment is a factor to be considered in determining alike the duration of the engagement and the length of notice. In the case of a domestic or menial servant a general hiring will be construed as a hiring for a year terminable by a month's notice or by payment of a month's wages (with nothing additional for board and lodging) on the part of the master, and by a month's notice on the part of the servant. There is, how ever, no right of set off by a master for accidental breakage of do mestic utensils by a servant. A custom in domestic service that either party may determine it at the end of the first month by no tice given at any time during the first fortnight has been held reasonable (George v. Davis, 1911, 2 K.B. 445). Judicial de cisions show that the rule as to a month's notice is not applicable in the case of an editor, a governess, a farm bailiff, a steward, the house-keeper of a large hotel or a servant in husbandry. But it
has been held to apply to a gardener and a huntsman.
Where the relation of master and servant clearly exists, the em ployer is responsible for injury occasioned by the negligent con duct of the servant in carrying out his orders. And this rule is so extensive as to make the master liable for the careless, reckless and wanton conduct of his servant, provided it be within the scope of his employment. But this responsibility does not prevent the servant from also being liable. A master is not, however, respon sible for a wilful fraud outside the course of the servant's employ ment, or for an act inconsistent with the nature of his duties.
If a servant wilfully disobey any lawful order of his master or unlawfully absent himself from his work, or if he be guilty of moral misconduct, or take a concealed commission, or prove grossly incompetent in some particular service for which he was engaged, he may be discharged without notice before the expiration of the period for which he was hired. Nor, in such case, is he entitled to any wages from the date of his discharge, if they had not then accrued due. There is no legal obligation on the part of the master to give a "character" to a domestic or menial servant, but it is common law misdemeanour for any one to give a false character either verbally or in writing. A master need not, when dismissing a servant, allege any particular act on the part of the latter as the ground for his discharge, it being sufficient for such cause actually to exist.
The obligations entailed upon a master towards his servant are further enhanced by the provisions of the National Health Insur ance Act 1924. The consideration for the benefits under this Act, in the cases to which it applies, being a compulsory weekly payment by the master and the servant of the amounts set out in the second schedule to the act. See EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY;