Servants may lawfully repel an attempt to commit arson or burglary in the habitations of their employers, and defend their houses, except against legal process or any other lawful entry (c)..

RIGHTS OF MASTERS AND MISTRESSES AGAINST OTHERS IN RESPECT OF THEIR SERVANTS.

Masters or mistresses may maintain an action against persons who induce servants not to enter the service after being engaged, or who entice them away from the service without a regular notice or warning (d). They have, also, such an interest in their servants, that they may maintain an action for the seduction of or for a personal injury wrongfully caused by another to, their servant, whereby their services are lost or impaired (e); but a master cannot maintain an action against a railway company for an injury to his servant while a passenger on the company's railway unless the master was a party to the contract to carry (ƒ).

The right of a father to maintain an action

(c) 1 Hale, 484; 1 Fost. 274.

(d) Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216.

(e) Martinez v. Gaber, 3 S. N. R. 88; Foster v. Stewart, 3 M. & S. 191; Evans v. Walton, 36 L. J., C. P. 307.

(ƒ) Alton and Another v. Midland Rail. Co., 34 L. J., C.

P. 292.

for loss of services against the person who killed his child was denied in Osborne v. Gillett (g), where the Lord Chief Baron and Baron Pigott held there was no right of action, and Baron Bramwell held there was.

TO

THE LIABILITY OF MASTERS AND MISTRESSES OTHERS NOT BEING SERVANTS FOR ACTS OF SERVANTS.

Masters and mistresses should always supply their servants beforehand with money to buy goods for them; as, where they have been allowed to order goods upon credit, their employers will be answerable even for goods bought in their name by their servants without their authority, or for which the servant has had the money, but has not paid it over to the tradesman (h).

Masters and mistresses are liable to others, not being fellow-servants, who sustain an injury from their servants executing their orders, express or implied, in a wanton, violent, negligent, improper, or roundabout manner; but they are not so liable for a wilful act, intrinsi

(g) L. R., Ex. Jan. 1873.

(h) Stubbing v. Heintz, Peake, 47; Rusby v. Scarlett, 5 Esp. 76; Pearce v. Rogers, 3 Esp. 214; Heald v. Kenworthy, 10 Ex. 739.

cally wrong, done by a servant (i), or where he, instead of doing that which he is employed to do, does something which he is not employed to do at all; for, in such case, the employer cannot be said to do it by his servant, and, therefore, is not responsible for the negligence of the servant in doing it (k). For instance, an employer will be liable for injury caused by his coachman's negligence when, being about his master's business, he makes a small deviation, or even when he so exceeds his duty as to justify his master in at once discharging him; but his employer is not liable when his coachman, in violation of his duty, and without his master's sanction or knowledge, instead of going from the house to the stable, starts on a new journey wholly unconnected with his master's business, or, in other words, on a purpose or frolic of his own (7); nor when he takes a job out of his master's employment.

Where there is no express or implied authority from the master for the act of his servant, he is not liable though it be done for the benefit of the master (m).

(i) Degg v. Midland Rail. Co., 1 H. & N. 782; Seymour v. Greenwood, 7 H. & N. 355; Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co., 1 H. & C. 526, Ex.

(k) Storey v. Ashton, 4 L. R., Q. B. 476.

(7) Joel v. Morrison, 6 C. & P. 501; Mitchel v. Crassweller, 13 C. B. 237; Degg v. Midland R. Co., 1 H. & N. 781. (m) Wilson v. Rankin, 34 L. J., Q. B. 62.

The owner of a carriage hiring horses and driver of a jobmaster is not liable for an accident caused by such driver, unless it arise by the master's personal interference or direction (n).

Although a servant may be in fault, where the other party has been guilty of contributory negligence, he cannot recover (o).

By 14 Geo. III. c. 78, s. 86, it is enacted, that no action shall lie against a person in whose house, or on whose estate, any fire shall accidentally begin, nor shall any recompense be made by any such person for any damage suffered thereby.

That section, it will be observed, only applies to the case of an accidental fire, and, therefore, masters or mistresses would not be exempted from liability at common law for fires caused by the negligence of themselves or their servants in the course of their employment (p).

Servant's statement after the event is not evidence against the master (7).

(n) Quannan v. Burnett, 6 M. & W. 499; M'Laughlin v. Prior, 4 M. & G. 50.

(0) Tuff v. Worman, 5 C. B., N. S. 573.

(p) Filliter v. Phippard, 11 Q. B. 347.

(2) Helyear v. Hawke, 5 Esp. 72, 75; Great Western R. Co. v. Willis, 34 L. J., C. P. 195.

LEGACIES.

Legacies to servants and others, under the value of 201., are exempt from the Legacy Duty (r).

Legacies given to servants are not preferred to other general legacies (s).

SERVANTS' BEHAVIOUR TO ONE ANOTHER.

The happiness of servants depends in a great measure upon their kind and considerate conduct to one another.

The upper servants should not be tyrannical or exacting towards the under servants, and the under servants should cheerfully follow the directions of the upper servants, who are placed in authority, and are responsible to their employers for the due discharge of the duties of the under servants; and the under servants should bear in mind that, by a good course of conduct, they may themselves become upper servants, with similar responsibilities.

Although servants should diligently and faithfully discharge their own allotted duty, they, at the same time, should be always ready

(7) 55 Geo. III., Schedule, Part III., Legacies, &c., II. (s) Attorney-General v. Robins, 2 P. Wms. 25.