his cross action against the servant for compensation for the damage he has sustained. (6) Neither can the master deduct from wages money paid by him to effect the servant's cure from a dangerous illness. (c)

Presumption of payment." If a servant has left a considerable time. without claiming wages, the presumption is that all the wages have been paid." (d) And if it is usual, in the case of particular classes of servants and workmen, to pay the wages weekly or monthly, and many weeks or months have elapsed without any claim or demand on the part of the servant, there may be a primâ facie presumption of payment. (e) But the master cannot be perfectly secure from liability, and may in many cases be made to pay twice over if he neglects to take a written receipt or to secure some evidence of the payment.

Jurisdiction of justices.—By 20 Geo. 2, c. 19, 31 Geo. 2, c. 11, and 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, disputes between servants in husbandry, artificers, handicraftsmen, miners, colliers, pitmen, glassmen, potters, and workmen in divers branches of manufactures, (f) and their masters, respecting the non-payment of wages, are to be heard and determined by one or more justice or justices of the peace, who may examine the complainant upon oath, and make an order for the payment of such wages as shall appear to be due, provided the sum do not exceed 107. in the case of a servant, nor 5. in the case of any artificer, handicraftsmen, miner, &c., as therein mentioned, and on non-payment by the master of any sum so ordered to be paid for twenty-one days, the amount may be levied by distress on his goods and chattels. (g) These acts extend only to masters and servants, and not to contracts for the doing of taskwork. (h)

The master is not responsible for personal injuries sustained by the servant in the execution of the master's commands, if the master has done no act calculated to conceal the danger of injury, and lull to sleep the vigilance and prudence of the servant. "The master is, no doubt, bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the course of his employment to the best of his judgment, information, and belief; but the law does not imply from the mere relation of master and servant an obligation on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to take of himself." (i) Neither is the master liable

(b) Le Loir v. Bristow, 4 Campb. 134. (c) Sellen v. Norman, 4 C. & P. 80. (d) Gazelee, J., Sellen v. Norman, 4 C. & P. 81. Evans v. Birch, 3 Campb. 10.

(e) Abbott, C. J., 4 C. & P. 81, n.

(f) 8 East, 113; 7 B. & C. 539. Domestic servants are not within these statutes, Kitchen

v. Shaw, 6 Ad. & E. 729; 1 N. & P. 791,

S. C.

(g) Burn's Justice, (SERVANTS,) s. 2. (h) Lancaster v. Greaves, 9 B. & C. 628; 7 Dowl. 702; 1 M. & S. 624.

(1) Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 5. Quar man v. Burnett, 6 ib. 499.

for surgical attendance and medicine rendered to a servant who has been injured in the execution of the master's service, (k) unless the surgeon has been called in by the master's orders. (1)

DUTIES and OBLIGATIONS of the SERVANT.

Every servant impliedly undertakes to obey the just and reasonable commands of the master, (m) and to be careful, diligent, and industrious in the performance of the work intrusted to him to execute. He is not bound to fulfil the unjust and unreasonable commands of a hard taskmaster, nor to perform work and services not fairly coming within the scope of his employment. "He is not bound to risk his safety in the service of his master, and may, if he thinks fit, decline any service in which he reasonably apprehends injury to himself.' (n) A servant who undertakes an office of skill impliedly represents himself to be possessed of the skill requisite for the due discharge of the functions of the office, and if he does not possess that skill, or if possessing it he fails to exercise it, he is responsible for a breach of contract and of the implied duties of his situation. Thus, if a gardener prunes and trains his master's figtrees and vines so unskilfully as to injure or destroy the trees, he is liable to an action for the damage or loss he has occasioned. So if a coachman injures or destroys his master's carriage or horses by gross ignorance and want of skill in driving, he is liable for such injuries. A servant, whilst engaged in the service of a tradesman, impliedly promises to serve faithfully and do no act knowingly and wilfully which may injure his trade or undermine his business. He must not attempt to draw away his master's customers; but there is no law which prevents him from soliciting prospective custom from them at some future period when he hopes to be able to set up in business for himself. (o)

Servants in husbandry, labourers, miners, artificers, handicraftsmen, and workmen in various branches of trade and manufactures are liable to be summoned by their masters before justices for absenting themselves and refusing to work and fulfil their contracts, and may, on conviction, be committed to jail. (p)

(k) Newby v. Wiltshire, 2 Esp. 739. Wennall v. Adney, 3 B. & P. 247, overruling Scarman v. Castell, 1 Esp. 270.

(1) Cooper v. Phillips, 4 C. & P. 581. Lamb v. Bunce, 4 M. & S. 275; ante, 100.

(m) Rex v. St John Devizes, 9 B. & C. 900, 901; 4 M. & R. 680.

(n) Per Cur., Priestly v. Fowler, 3 M. & W.6.

(o) Nichol v. Martin, 2 Esp. 734.

(p) 13 Geo. 2, c. 8, s. 8; 20 Geo. 2, c. 19, s. 1; 6 Geo. 3, c. 25, s. 4; 4 Geo. 4, c. 34; Burn's Justice, (Servants,) 880, 881.

DISSOLUTION of the CONTRACT.

Dismissal for misconduct.-If a servant wilfully disobeys or habitually neglects the just and reasonable orders of the master; if he absents himself repeatedly from the service, or refuses to perform his work, or to submit to the domestic regulations of the house, or is guilty of gross moral misconduct, the contract may be dissolved by the master, and the servant dismissed.

The following INSTANCES of MISCONDUCT and DISOBEDIENCE have been held to warrant a dismissal of the servant and a dissolution of the contract by the master:-Being frequently absent and sleeping out without leave; (4) pregnancy; (r) assaulting a fellow maid-servant with intent to ravish her; (s) refusing to conform to the hour of dinner; (1) trespassing unlawfully in game preserves; (u) enticing away of the master's servants; (2) becoming the father of a bastard; (y) seducing the master's maid-servant; repeatedly coming home intoxicated; (2) making fraudulent entries in account-books; (a) absence from the master's dwellinghouse for a night to visit a sick mother against the will of the master, and after leave of absence had been asked for and refused; (b) the setting up of a claim, inconsistent with the relation of master and servant, such as a claim to be a partner, (c) or the assertion of rights and privileges not warranted by the contract or the nature of the service, and injurious to the interests of the master. (d) And it is apprehended that the entertaining of guests at the master's expense, without his knowledge and without any express or implied permission so to do, would be a good ground of dismissal. (e)

The following instances of misconduct and disobedience of orders, on the other hand, have been held not to constitute a sufficient ground of dismissal and dissolution of the contract of hiring and service without notice. Temporary absence without leave, producing no serious inconvenience to the employer; (f) occasional insolence of manners and sulki

(q) Robinson v. Hindman, 3 Esp. 235. As to customs to take holidays, see ante, 165.

(r) Rex v. Brampton, Cald. 14, 16, 17. (s) Atkin v. Acton, 4 C. & P. 208.

(t) Spain v. Arnott, 2 Stark. 256.

(u) Read v. Dunsmore, 9 C. & P. 588.

(x) Turner v. Robinson, 6 C. & P. 15; 5 B.

& Ad. 789; 2 N. & M. 829, s. c.

(y) Rex v. Welford, Cald. 57.

(2) Wise v. Wilson, 1 C. & K. 662.

(a) Baillie v. Kell, 6 Sc. 379, 4 Bing. N. C. 638, s. c.

(b) Turner v. Mason, 14 M. & W. 112; 14 Law J., N. s., (Exch.,) 311.

(c) Amor v. Fearon, 1 P. & D. 398. (d) Lacy v. Osbaldiston, 8 C. & P. 80. (e) But see Smith v. Kingsford, 3 Sc. 279. (f) Fillieul v. Armstrong, 7 Ad. & E. 557 ; 2 N..& P. 406, s. c.

ness; and occasional disobedience in matters of trifling moment, such as neglecting to come on one or two occasions when the bell rang; stopping at one hotel when ordered to stop at another; (g) temporary absence on customary holidays, (h) or for the purpose of having a severe hurt attended to, (i) or for the purpose of procuring another situation, such absence being warranted by custom. ()

WARNING and NOTICE TO LEAVE.-In the case of a yearly hiring, not made defeasible by custom or by the agreement of the parties, reasonable notice must be given on either side of the intention of determining the contract, which notice must expire with the current year of hiring, as in the case of a tenancy from year to year (ante, 667-673); but the same length of notice is not required in the case of a yearly hiring of a servant as is required in the case of a yearly hiring of land. A quarter's notice, given a quarter of a year before the expiration of the current year of hiring, would in all cases be amply sufficient, and a month's notice is often all that is required by custom and usage to determine the contract and entitle the servant to leave.

SECTION II.

CONTRACTS OF APPRENTICESHIP.

When the employer exercises some trade, craft, or mystery, and it is made a term of the contract that he shall teach as well as employ and remunerate the servant for some specific period in return for the service rendered, the contract amounts to an apprenticeship, a term derived from the French word apprendre, to learn. A service as an apprentice for a certain number of years is generally a necessary preliminary to the exer

(g) Callo v. Brouncker, 4 C. & P. 518. Cussons v. Skinner, 11 M. & W. 161.

(h) Reg. v. Stoke, 5 Ad. & E., N. s., 303.
(i) Rex v. Sharrington, 2 Bolt. P. L. 525.

Chandler v. Grieves, 2 H. Bl. 606, n.

(k) Rex v. Islip, 1 Str. 423. Rex v. Polesworth, 2 B. & Ald. 483.

cise of particular trades and professions, and as the contract is always made to last for more than one year, it must be authenticated by writing, signed by the party to be charged therewith (ante, 96-98). At common law, no particular description of written instrument is requisite to create a contract of apprenticeship. By the stat. 5 Eliz., c. 4, s. 25, the binding of an apprentice for the purpose of exercising trades was required to be made by INDENTURE; but now, by 54 Geo. 3, c. 96, s. 2, it is enacted, that it shall be lawful for any person to take or retain or become an apprentice, though not according to the 25th, 30th, and 41st sections of the statute of Elizabeth, and that indentures, deeds, and agreements in writing, entered into for that purpose, which would be otherwise invalid and ineffectual, shall be valid and effectual; but it is provided, that the enactment shall not affect the immemorial customs of towns or bye-laws of corporations.

It is essential to the validity of every contract of apprenticeship that it be stamped with the ad valorem stamp imposed by 55 Geo. 3, c. 184, and that the consideration or premium paid or given with the apprentice be truly stated and set forth upon the face of the instrument. The stat. 8 Anne, c. 9, s. 35, requires "the full sum or sums of money received, or in anywise directly or indirectly given, paid, agreed, or contracted for, with, or in relation to every clerk, apprentice, or servant placed with any master or mistress to learn any profession, trade, or employment, to be "truly inserted and written in words at length in some indenture or other writing which shall contain the covenants, articles, contracts, or agreements relating to the service of such clerk, apprentice, or servant,” and every indenture or writing wherein such sum of money is not truly inserted is made absolutely void (s. 39) and unavailable in any court or place, or to any purpose whatsoever. And no such indenture or writing is to be admitted in evidence in any suit brought by any of the parties thereto, unless the party on whose behalf it is tendered in evidence makes oath that to the best of his or her knowledge the sum mentioned therein was really and truly all that was directly or indirectly paid to or for the benefit of such master or mistress. (a)

An agreement by a married woman to pay a sum of money, in addition to the premium inserted in the indenture, does not avoid the contract, inasmuch as the agreement is invalid by reason of the coverture. (b) And if the master reserves to himself a certain proportion of the apprentice's earnings, this is not a benefit to him within the meaning of the statute,

(a) Rex v. Keynsham, 5 East, 311.

(b) Rex v. Bourton, 9 B. & C. 872; 4 M. & R. 631, s. c.