MASTER AND SERVANT. The relation of master and servant is constituted in Great Britain entirely by contract; for there being no status of slavery recognized in law, one person can only serve another with his or her own free consent. Being a mere contract, rt may, like other contracts, be broken at will, subject only to the usual consequence that the party in the wrong is liable to pay damages for the breach- In England and Ireland the engagement or hiring of a servant may be either verbal or in writing; but if the engagernent is for more than one year, it must be in writing. If for an indefinite time, no writing is necessary. When a servant continues in the service after the first year, a renewal of the contract is presumed on the same terms. Sometimes it is difficult to say whether an eng,agement of an indefinite kind is by the year, or by the month or week; in such cases a material fact is how the wages were to be paid, for if they are paid weekly, the presumption will be that the hiring was by the week, unless there are other circumstances to show that a yearly hiring was meant. The difference between a yearly contract and a weekly one is that if the servant is discharged without canse during the year, lie is entitled to wages up to the end of the year; and on the other hand, if he leave without cause during the service, he is entitled to no wages at all.
A servant undertakes to have conapetent skill for the duties of the service, and is bound to use due diligence, and to conduct himself respectfully. He is bound to obey all law ful orders of his master during the engagement, if they are within the scope of the par ticular service for which he was engaged. Thus, a coachman is not bound to do the duties of a cook, and vice versa. Every servant is bound to take due care of his master's property, and he is liable to an action at the suit of his master for gross negligence, and also for fraud and misfeasance. A master is not entitled to chastise a servant, whatever the age of the servant may be, though, in the ease of an apprentice under age, a mod erate chastisement is justifiable. The grounds on which a servant may be lawfully discharg,ed are willful disobedience, gross immorality, habitual negligence, and incompe tence. If any person entice away a servant, and thereby cause loss to the master, the latter Inay sue such person for the injury. If the servant is a female, and is seduced, and thereby is unable to continue her service, the master may also bring an action amainst the seducer for any loss of service caused thereby; and on the same principle a master may bring an action against a third party who causes personal injury to the ser vant. In the case of the bankruptcy of the master, a preference is given to the servant's wages if due and unpaid, but this extends only to two months' wages, and the servant is an ordinary creditor for the balance beyond that sum. The death of the master is a discharge of the contract; and in many cases the servant is not entitled to recover wages for the time actually served, though there is an exception as to domestic servants. If a servant is rightf ully discharged he is not entitled to wages for the broken time since the previous periodical payment of wages; and so in the case of the servant's death during the currency of the term, the servant's executors cannot recover payment for the broken time; but it is otherwise in the case of domestic servants. When a servant falls sick the
master is not bound to provide medical attendance whether the servant lives under his roof or not; but as in such cases a doctor is often sent for by the master without any express understanding between the parties, the master is frequently made liable on the ground that the doctor was sent for by and gave credit to the master. As a general rule, the servant takes the risk of all the ordinary accidents attending the particular service; and if he sulfer from an accident met with in the course of the service, the master is not liable for the consequences, unless there was some personal negligence on his part. Thus, it often happens that servants are engaged in a manufactory or building where machinery is used and accidents frequently occur. Another case often occurs where two or three servants of the same master are engaged together, and one servant is injured by the negligence of another. In such a case the rule is that the injured servant can sue the master, except where the servants at the time were engaged in a common oper ation, for in the latter case the servants are or ought to be a check on each other. In cases where a servant injures a third party, the rule is that the master is liable, provided the servant at the time was acting in the ordinary course of his duty, and within the scope of the master's orders, expressed or implied. Hence, if a coachman carelessly run down a person on the highway, or do injury to another, the master is liable; but if the coachman was driving the master's carriage without or contrary to the orders of the master, the servant alone is liable. So the master is not in any way responsible for the crimes or criminal offenses committed by his servant; yet sometimes he is involved in fines. The above are the general rules as regards servants generally; but in England there is a distinction in many instances observed between domestic servants and other servants. The leading distinction is that if nothing is said as to the length of service, it is presumed that the service can be terminated at any time, on giving a month's notice on either side, or in case of the discharge of a domestic servant without notice, then on payment of a month's wages. It is often popularly thought that a domestic servant can not be turned out of the master's house at a moment's notice, even on paying a mouth's wages, but this can always be done with or without cause. In case of discharge with out cause, the servant is entitled to a month's wages, but not board wages; she also gets wages only up to the master's death. He is not compelled to give a character to the servant; it is entirely optional; but if he does so, then it must be a true one, otherwise an action will lie for defamation. But if a master without malice, and acting bona fide, gives an untrue character, he is not liable, for the communication is held to be privi leged. If a master knowingly give a false character to a servant who is engaged by a third party on the faith of it, and robs such third party, the latter can sue the former master for the damages. Persons personating masters, and giving false characters, and servants using such false characters, are liable to be qummarily convicted, and fined X2O.