MASTER AND SERVANT, master liable for acts of his servants, when privilege of master giving character for servant communication made on request. master has right of action for beating servant, when evidence of slight service sufficient child of tender years beaten binding engagement not necessary killing servant 34, 35 . 169, 170 170 232, 233 233 233 233 233 233, 234 servant may justify battery in favor of master whether master may justify battery in favor of servant seduction of daughter and servant . 233, 234 286-305 action for seduction of wife does not rest on relation of mas- telegraph company not servant of sender of message 334, 335, 337 636, 654-657 sub-contractors not servants servants employing other servants not liable for acts of latter 657 658 707-709 . 709, 710 against husbandmen 226, 227 226 226 226 226 226, 326 227 227 346-347 . 360-370 103, 104 282 (See DAMAGE.) MITIORI SENSU, doctrine of, as to slanderous words exploded. 101 MONKEYS, injuries by . 478 N. NAVIGATION, obstructing. 473, 474 NEGLIGENCE, case. McCully v. Clark, leading case. When for the jury, and when not 559 568 Trying horse in a thorough- 570 . . Byrne v. Boadle, leading case. Presumption of negligence . negligence as a question of law or of fact. what the standard the conduct of the prudent man limits of this standard diligence of "expert" and "non-expert" presumptions of negligence 596-601 various examples. 596-599 injuries by railway, steamboat, and stage-coach companies Thomas v. Winchester, leading case. Mistake in labelling drug causation 600, 601 601 602 608-613 action by receiver of message for error in transmission 619-626 619-621 621-626 622 whether telegraph company can be considered as agents or ser- .... 624-626 Sweeny v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., leading case. License to go 659 659, 660 on one's premises . 660 Indermaur v. Dames, leading case. Duty to give notice of dan- gerous place 668 Roberts v. Smith, leading case. Master and servant 684 Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Corp., leading case. Fellow-servants 688 697-702 probably no distinction between servants and others 707, 708 causation .. Massachusetts rule who are fellow-servants. Sutton v. Wauwatosa, leading case. Contributory negligence. Violation of Sunday law by plaintiff. . ground of doctrine of contributory negligence persons paralyzed by fear through defendant's conduct. when trespasser may recover for injury. 710 711 721-725 721 721, 722 the negligence must have been contributory in the legal sense, to distinction between injuries to property and personal annoyances 467, 468 burning of bricks noxious gases, smoky vapors, &c. mental discomfort disturbance of Sabbath. public nuisances. when actionable by private suit and when by public special damage, what distinction between kind and degree obstruction of navigation doctrine of imputability of negligence of former to latter con- sidered PARTY-WALLS, (See SUPPORT OF GROUND AND BUILDINGS.) PASSENGER AND CARRIER, 729-732 doctrine of identificatiou of former with latter considered. . . 726-729 |