of notice, it is for a jury to say what is reasonable in all the circumstances (j). In Lowe v. Walter (k), six months' notice was held to be reasonable in the case of a foreign correspondent; and in Chamberlain v. Bennett (1), the same was held of a newspaper sub-editor; and in Fox-Bourne v. Vernon (m), of a newspaper editor. In Creen v. Wright (n), the contract gave the defendants, who were owners of a ship, power to dismiss a master abroad without notice. The Court refused to hold that a like right existed when the master was in this country. "He was entitled to some, and that is, to reasonable notice." The Courts have refused to follow the analogy of notices for the expiration of tenancies which must be given so as to terminate at the end of the current year. This was so in Ryan v. Jenkinson (0), where a schoolmaster was appointed "at the rate of 557. per annum"; his appointment being terminable by three months' notice from either party. Contracts of service with the Crown are (except in a few special cases) determinable at the pleasure of the Crown; and the Crown, upon grounds of public convenience, cannot bind itself to employ a servant for a fixed period. straight off," or that "the engagement lasts from piece end to piece end," or "until completion of the job"; in certain other cases that no notice or only one of an hour is necessary. See Labour Commission, 1892, Answers to Schedules of Questions, Group C., 6795-ix. p. ix. (j) "If a servant is retained for a year he cannot depart out of his master's service without reasonable notice according to the statute": Y. B. 38 H. 6, p. 14. "Qui impleto tempore conductionis remansit in conductione, non solum reconduxisse videbitur, sed etiam pignora videntur durare obligata." Dig. lib. xix. tit. 2, s. 11. (k) (1892), 8 Times L. R. 358. (7) (1892), 8 Times L. R. 234. (m) (1894), 10 Times L. R. 647, where Russell, C. J., points out that Brennan v. Gilbart-Smith (1894), 10 Times L. R. 647, does not lay it down that newspaper editors are entitled to twelve months' notice, because "in that case no notice was given, and the question of twelve months' notice only arose incidentally with a view to fixing the amount of damages." Hiscox v. Bachelor (1867), 15 L. T. (N. S.) 543 (advertising agent); Foxall v. International Land Credit Co. This principle applies equally to (1867), 16 L. T. (N. S.) 637 (clerk). As to "notice" in the case of schoolmasters, see Hayman v. Governors of Rugby School (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 28; Wright v. Marquis of Zetland, [1908] 1 K. B. 63. Levy v. Electrical Wonder Co. (1893), 9 Times L. R. 495 (manager of a company); In re Illustrated News Corporation (1900), 16 Times L. R. 157 (journalist). (n) (1876), L. R. 1 C. P. D. 591. (0) (1855), 25 L. J. Q. B. 11; Kein v. Hart (1868), 2 I. R. C. L. 138; 3 I. R. C. L. 388, which may be consulted as to what words constitute a notice. In Beeston v. Collyer (1827), 4 Bing. 309, the Court refused to say whether the rule as to notice in case of tenancies applied to the hire of servants or not; while in Lowe v. Walter (1892), 8 Times L. R. 358, Coleridge, C. J., denied that it did not apply. See further as to notice, Fawcett v. Cash (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 904; Williams v. Byrne (1837), 7 A. & E. 177 (newspaper reporter); Broxham v. Wagstaffe (1841), 5 Jur. 845 (chemist's assistant); Turner v. Mason (1845), 14 M. & W. 112; Metzner v. Bolton (1854), 9 Ex. 518 (commercial traveller). military and civil servants (p). Nor will the agent of the Crown, who engaged the servant, be liable if the servant be dismissed before the expiration of the period fixed by the contract of service, either upon the contract or for breach of warranty of authority (q). (p) Dunn v. The Queen, [1896] 1 Q. B. 116; Shenton v. Smith, [1895] A. C. 229; both cases petitions of right alleging wrongful dismissal, and claiming damages. In the latter case it was held that the prerogative extended to the government of a Crown Colony. (9) Dunn v. Macdonald, [1897] 1 Q. B. 401; C. A., ibid. 555. Certain public bodies possess an express power of dismissing their servants according to discretion, and without assigning misconduct: see Hayes v. Governors of Richmond Lunatic Asylum (1891), 28 L. R. Ir. 107 (decided upon 30 & 31 Vict. c. 118, s. 6). In Wright v. Marquis of Zetland, [1908] 1 K. B. 63, the C. A. held that the scheme of the school gave the headmaster a power of dismissing assistant masters at pleasure.” APPENDIX. Yearly or not yearly hiring (p. 136). YEARLY HIRING. Rex v. Stockbridge (1773), Bur. S. C. 759. Postillion served for a year; nothing said as to wages; yearly hiring. Rex v. Macclesfield (1789), 3 T. R. 76. Servant hired for eleven months at 10 guineas; at the expiration of the time told by his master "You may as well stay on an end in your place"; servant assented; second agreement a general hiring. Rex v. Seaton (1784), Cald. 440. Wages payable weekly; promise to stay another year. Rex v. Birdbrooke (1791), 4 T. R. 245. Labourer agrees to serve farmer at 38. per week the year round." 66 Rex v. Hampreston (1791), 5 T. R. 205. Serve at so much a week with liberty to part on a month's notice. Rex v. Lyth (1793), 5 T. R. 327. A husbandman served for a year; strong evidence of hiring for a year. Rex v. Long Whatton (1793), 5 T. R. 447. Service with the same master for three years evidence of hiring for a year, though servant at first hired only for part of a year. See also Rex v. Hales (1794), 5 T. R. 668; Rex v. Worfield (1794), 5 T. R. 506. NOT YEARLY HIRING. Rex v. Dedham (1769), Bur. S. C. 653. Glazier hired at the wages of 68. a week, summer and winter. Rex v. Elsack (1785), 2 Bott, 203. Maidservant hired at 1s. 4d. a week and board and lodging for so long as they should want"; weekly hiring. Rex v. Newton Toney (1788), 2 T. R. 453. Ostler hired at 48. 6d. a week"; weekly hiring. Rex v. Odiham (1788), 2 T. R. 622. Service for a year at so much a week without fixing any time of service; no yearly hiring. Rex v. St. Peters (1763), Bur. S. C. 513. Hiring at so much and to part on a week's notice, not a hiring for a year, though servant continued six years with her master. Rex v. Pucklechurch (1804), 5 East, 382. Servant hired himself in the first instance for eight weeks, and afterwards to the same master for less than a year at weekly wages; then entered into new agreement with same master at weekly wages, nothing said as to duration of service; weekly hiring. Rex v. Mitcham (1810), 12 East, 351. Hiring at so much a week for as long time as master and servant could agree; a weekly hiring. YEARLY HIRING. Rex v. Pendleton (1812), 15 East, 449. Hiring for a year presumed from service for three years. Rex v. Great Yarmouth (1816), 5 M. & S. 114. Hiring at weekly wages, either party to be free to part at a month's notice; held to be a yearly hiring, though the case stated that the servant let himself by the week. Beeston v. Collyer (1827), 4 Bing. 309. Defendant entered plaintiff's service as clerk in 1793; was paid quarterly in 1811; during last six years the salary was paid monthly. Rex v. St. Martins (1828), 8 B. & C. 674. Yearly hiring of a boots and tap-boy inferred from service for three years and a quarter, and the fact that the master had retained him after the fortnight for which he had at first invited him to stay. Rex v. St. Andrews (1828), 8 B. & C. 679. Hiring at 17. a week with a month's notice or a month's wages; yearly hiring. Stiff v. Cassell (1856), 2 Jur. N. S. 348. Contract by author to write tales for a weekly publication, extending over the period of one year," to be paid 107. a week for each number; matter to be supplied each week. Turner v. Robinson (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 789. Foreman of silk manufacturers; wages to be "at the rate of 801. a year"; yearly hiring. Fawcett v. Cash (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 904. Plaintiff entered the service of defendant under the following agreement: "Plaintiff engages to pay defendant 127. 10s. per month for the first year, and advance 107. per annum until the salary is 1807., from the 5th of March, 1832"; contract for at least a year. Down v. Pinto (1854), 9 Ex. 327. See p. 137. Parker v. Ibbetson (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. See p. 137. Brown v. Symons (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 208; 29 L. J. C. P. 251. See p. 137. Davis v. Marshall (1861), 4 L. T. (N. S.) 216. Plaintiff, manager of a shop under an agreement by which he was to receive a salary of 301. payable monthly; hiring for a year. NOT YEARLY HIRING. Rex v. Dodderhill (1814), 3 M. & S. 243. Servant hired to serve for weekly wages of 48. and board and washing, except in the harvest month, when wages to be 10s. 6d. Rex v. St. Mary (1815), 4 M. & S. 315. Hiring at so much a week and 2 guineas for harvest; not yearly hiring. Rex v. Rolvenden (1815), 1 M. & R. 691. Ostler hired at so much a week for the winter and so much for the summer; weekly hiring. R. v. Woodhurst (1818), 1 R. & Ald. 325. Agreement to serve from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and to make 70,000 bricks at a stipulated price. Rex v. Christ's Parish (1824), 3 B. & C. 459. Boy entered service of farmer for meat and clothes as long as he had a mind to stop; hiring at will. Rex v. Warminster (1826), 6 B. & C. 77. Hiring at 6s. a week for the winter and 9s. a week for summer, nothing being said as to duration of service. Rex v. Ardington (1834), 1 A. & E. 260. A. hired a shepherd for a term less than a year ending Michaelmas, 1825; he served for a few days after Michaelmas under no new agreement; master asked him if he chose to go on with him; wages to be the same; A. continued in service until Lady Day, 1826; no yearly hiring. Baxter v. Nurse (1843), 1 C. & K. 10; (1844), 6 M. & G. 938. Action by editor of "Polytechnic Review for wrongful dismissal; evidence that by general usage editors, subeditors, reporters, and other persons regularly employed on newspapers are employed for a year; jury found that the usage did not apply to the Polytechnic Review," which was a new publication; application for new trial refused. Holcroft v. Barber (1843), 1 C. & K. 4. Action for wrongfully dismissing an editor; evidence that any person permanently employed (not occasionally only), whether as editor, sub-editor, or reporter, to supply a particular department of a newspaper, is to be presumed to be hired for a year; the jury found for the defendant. YEARLY HIRING. year Langton v. Carleton (1873), L. R. 9 Ex. 57. Agreement between plaintiffs and defendant; latter engaged at salary of 2007. a payable fortnightly; the agreement between the parties to be for twelve months certain, after which time either party to be at liberty to terminate the agreement by giving the other a three months' notice; and after twelve months or before any notice shall have expired, plaintiffs may do so on payment to defendant of 507.-Bramwell, B., and Pigott, B., held that it was an agreement to expire without notice at end of twelve months, and then to continue, if the parties so pleased, until terminated by three months' notice. Kelly, C. B., thought the contract contemplated a continuance of service beyond the three months. Buckingham v. The Surrey and Hants Canal Co. (1882), 46 L. T. (N. S.) 885. Plaintiff appointed engineer to defendants at a salary of 5007. a year; dismissed at a three months' notice. A yearly hiring; plaintiff entitled to recover salary for the unexpired portion of the year. NOT YEARLY HIRING. Butterfield v. Marler (1851), 3 C. & K. 163. Plaintiff, commission agent, acting for defendants; proof that for more than a year he had rendered his accounts. Blackwell v. Pennant (1852), 9 Hare, 551. Servant paid weekly wages though irregularly; not yearly hiring. Fairman v. Oakford (1860), 5 H. & N. 635. Plaintiff, a clerk of ship broker, left defendant's service, receiving a month's wages instead of notice; subsequently entered the defendant's service at a yearly salary of 2501.; nothing expressly said as to notice or duration of service; plaintiff paid weekly. Judge left it to the jury to say whether there was a hiring for a year, telling them, according to the report in the Law Journal, that, except in the case of menial servants, there was no inflexible rule that a general hiring is for a year. The jury found no contract for a year, and the Court refused to say that there was misdirection, or that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. Robertson V. Jenner (1867), 15 L. T. (N. S.) 514. Hiring at 2 guineas a week for a year is hiring by the week and not by the year. Evans v. Roe (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 138. Plaintiff entered service of defendants under a memorandum which, inter alia, said, "April 13th, 1871. I hereby agree to accept the situation as foreman, &c., on my receiving a salary of 21. per week and house to live in from the 19th April, 1871." Weekly hiring, and no evidence of conversation at the time of signing with a view to show yearly contract intended, was admissible. CHAPTER XI. MASTER'S DUTY TO INDEMNIFY. A MASTER is bound to indemnify his servant for all expenses incurred or loss sustained in obeying his lawful orders. No express contract of indemnity is required; the law will presume from the relation of master and servant-as, in fact, from any other contract of agency—an obligation to hold the latter harmless from the consequences of obedience to the lawful orders of the former (a). The first important exception to the rule is that a promise, expressed or implied, to indemnify a servant against the consequences of violation of a statute, or a felony or misdemeanour, or a manifest civil wrong, is of no effect. Thus, a promise to indemnify a printer against the consequences of publishing a libel (b), or to indemnify a police constable for suffering a prisoner to escape (c), or for an assault (d), would be void. In all such cases the principle that there is no contribution between the tort-feasors or wrongdoers applies. Where, however, an act is not palpably illegal, and is done (a) Story on Agency, s. 339; Wharton on Agency, s. 340; Dig. Lib. xvii. tit. 1, 27, 4. Pothier ( Mandat, Chap. IV., s. I., A. I.) says of L'obligation de rembourser le mandataire": Pour qu'il y ait lieu à cette obligation, il faut 1° que le mandataire ait déboursé quelque chose; 2° qu'il l'ait déboursé ex causa mandati; 3° qu'il l'ait déboursé sans faute, inculpabiliter." (b) Shackell v. Rosier (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 634. ("The plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, had published the libel; that is, had committed an indictable offence. What is that but saying that, in consideration that the plaintiff and defendant had combined to commit a breach of the law, the defen dant promised to save the plaintiff harmless?"-Tindal, C. J.) Colburn v. Patmore (1834), Cr. M. & R. 173. (Action by proprietor of a paper against an editor for publishing a libel, for which plaintiff was convicted and fined; the judges indicated their opinion that a proprietor could not recover against the editor the damages sustained by such conviction.) (c) Featherstone v. Hutchinson, Cro. Eliz. 199. (d) Allen v. Rescous (1676), 2 Lev. 174; Battersey's Case (20 James I.), Winch, 48, and Farebrother v. Ansley (1808), 1 Camp. 344; said by Story (Agency, 339) to be overruled. |