John Macdonell.

The law of master and servant. Part I.--Common law. Part II.-- Statute law online

. (page 19 of 77)
Online LibraryJohn MacdonellThe law of master and servant. Part I.--Common law. Part II.-- Statute law → online text (page 19 of 77)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Camp. 134. ball v to her lo make a will, leaving li^r

(;') Aldcrson v. Maddison. (1881), a lite interest in the farm. The Judge

50 L. .]. Q. B. 4t)G. (Action hrought entered .iud,^^nellt for the defendant ;

hy the plaintiff as heir-at-law to but the Court of Appeal set it a.side

recover title-deeds of eertain pro- on the ground that the contract re-

perty. Tiie defemlant, who had been lated to laud, and that there had not

for some years in the .service of the in- been part performance sunieient to

testate T. A. as hou.sekeeper, counter- take the case out of the Statute of

claimed for a declaration that she was Frauds.)

entitled to a life estate in a farm. (</) Ilindky \. Uaslam (1878), L.

At the trial the jury found that the E. 3 <,). B. D. 481.
defendant was induced to serve T. A.


Wageti, ivlieii and hoiv vayahle.

A master is responsible for the payment of wages, even
tliough the servant has been hired b}' the baiHff or overseer (g)
It is sometimes said that at Common Law wages are due and
payable when they are earned, but in practice this point is
governed by custom or the terms of the contract. In
Ridgivay v. Hiingerford Market Co. (h), the Court thought
that evidence of successive quarterly payments of the salary
of a clerk was sufficient to show that he was entitled to
payment of his salary quarterly, although the minutes of his
appointment in the company's books merely mentioned an an-
n\ial salary, and did not mention the periods at which it was
payable. So far as seamen are concerned, the time of
payment of wages is fixed by the Merchant Shipping Act
(17 & 18 Vict., c. 104, ss. 182, 187). In the case of ships
in the home trade, it is two days after the termination of the
agreement, or at the time when the seaman is discharged,
Avhichever first happens.

The Legislature has in various statutes imposed restric-
tions on the mode of paying wages. Tlius, in tlic Truck Act
( I & 2 Will. IV., c. 37), it has laid it down that contracts for
the hiring of artificers are to be paid in current coin and not
iji goods (i). So in the Coal Mines Regulation Act (35 & 3G
Vict, c. 7C, s. 16), and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation
Act (35 & 36 Vict., c. 77, s. 9), it is enacted that wages shall
not be paid at any public-house or beershop to persons
employed at any mine to which the Acts apply {j).

Oj) Nabonie v. Scott (ISl;')), Vict., c. 90, s. 4), Part II., Cliap-

J I nine, Ueci.sions, 353. tor XIV. As to recovery of wages

(7t) (1835), 4 N. & M. 707 ; 3 A. of sciimcn, see 17 & 18 Vict., c. 104,

c*c K. 171. s. 187 ; 43 & 44 Vict., c. 16, s. 11 ;

(/) See Part II. Chapter IV. 31 & 32 Vict., c. 71, .s. 3, siil)-

(,/) "W.if^es 7Jiay be recovciuil in soc 2. County Courts wliicli have

tlie County Courts, or procccdinjjs Admiralty jurisdiction may entci -

niay ho taken under the Employers tain claims for wi<,'cs when amount

and Workmen Act, 1875(38 & 30 claimed does not exceed £150. As to



Subject to what is hereinafter stated, servants of a com-
pany are not entitled in full, in priority to other creditors, to
any part of their wages or salary, and the winding-up order
is notice of their discharge {k). In a case, however, decided
by Page Wood, V.C, where an official liquidator was ap-
pointed and there was actual business to transact after the
winding-up, it was held that a servant of a company engaged
for a period terminating 1st July, 1870, was entitled to the
present value of an annuity ending at that date (I).

It must be added, however, that in Re Xorton Iron Works
Co. (m), Jessel, M.R.., and in Re Association of Land Finan-
ciers (n), Malins, V.-C, made orders for payment in full of
workmen's Avages in priority to all other debts after presen-
tation of petition for winding-up, on the strength of the tenth
section of the Judicature Act, 1875, which assimilates the rules
in winding up, companies to the rules in bankruptcy. " In
bankruptcy," said Malins, V.-C, " servants had priority to the
extent of £')0, and it appears to me that it must have been the

remedies of inanied women, see 45 &
46 Vict. c. 75, and Chapter VI. As
to infants' remedies for waf^es, Judi-
cature Acts, Ord. XVI. r. 8 (infants
to sue as plaintiffs by their next
friends) ; Count}' Court Eules. 1875,
Ord. v., r. 7 (ditto) ; Ord. IV. r. 9
(next friend to be responsible for
costs) ; 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 64 (in-
fant may sue for "any sum of money
not greater than twenty pounds which
may be due to him for wages or ]iiece-
■work, or for work as a servant, in the
same manner as if he were of full
age"). Where under sect. 1 of the
County Courts Act, 1875, the leave of
the judgt^ or registrar is required for
the issue of a default summons, such
leave may be given in all cases except
W'here the affidavit given in Schedule
A. to the Act " that the de-
fendant is a domestic or menial ser-
vant, a labourer, a servant in hus-
bandry, a journeyman, an artificer, a
handicraftsman, a miner, or any person
engaged in manual labour ; " but no
such leave is rociiiired if the action be
for the price, value, or hire of good

sold and delivered, or let on hire to
the defendant, to be used or dealt with
in the way of his trade, profession, or
calling. Ord. IV. r. 5.

(t) Chapman's Case (1866), L. K.
1 Eq. 346.

[l] YcllamVs Case .(1867), L. E. 4
Eq. 350.

(/h) (1877), 26 ^\. E. 53.

(/() (1881), L. R. 16 Ch. D., 373;
and see In re Alhion Steel and Wire
Co. (1878), L. R. 7 Ch. D. 547, where
Jessel, j\I.R., took a narrower view of
the tenth section. Shirrcff's Claim,
(1872), L. R. 14 Eq. 417"; 42 L. J.
Ch. 5. (Shirreff, manager of a com-
pany ; by articles of association, it
was provided that if he should be
dismissed, the company were to pay
him the full amount of money paid
upon his shares in the company.
The company ordered to be wound
up ; S. held entitled to prove in wind-
ing up for the sum specified, subject
to a set-off of money paid to him as
remuneration for being liquidator.)
See the Stannaries Act of 1869 (32 k
3 Vict. c. 19 . 6).


intention of the Legislature to extend this rule to windings up.
It is an obvious act of justice, and it is monstrous to suppose
that the Legislature could have intended the servants of a
company to be utterly destitute when that is not the rule in
bankruptcy, and the Legislature has said the same rules as
to unsecured creditors are to prevail in windings up."

Effect of Banhruptcy on Wages.

By the Bankruptcy Act of 18G9 (82 el- 33 Vict. c. 71), sec.
32, it is enacted as follows : " The debts hereinafter mentioned
shall be paid in priority to all other debts. Between them-
selves such debts shall rank equally, and shall be paid in
full, unless the property of the bankrupt is insufficient to
meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal propor-
tions between themselves; that is to say:" (1.) Parochial
or other local rates, assessed taxes, land tax, and property or
income tax ; (2.) " All wages or salary of any clerk or
servant in the employment of the bankrupt at the date of
the order of adjudication, not exceeding four months' wages
or salary, and not exceeding fifty pounds ; all wages of any
labourer or workman in the employment of the bankrupt at
the date of the order of adjudication, and not exceeding two
months' wages " (o). Sect. 90 says : " Where the bankrupt
is in receipt of a salary or income other than as aforesaid "
(officer of army or navy, officer or clerk in the civil service,
or in the enjoyment of any pension or compensation granted
by the Treasury), " the Court upon the application of the
trustee shall make such order for the payment of such
salary or income, or of any part thereof, to the trustee
during the bankruptcy, and to the registrar if necessary after
the close of the bankruptcy, to be applied by him in such
manner as the Court may direct."

(o) This section does not apply to JFallcr (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 412 ; 42
compositions under s. 126 ; Ex parte L. J. Hank. 49 ; 21 W. K. 523.


The Act does not define "clerk or servant;" but tlio
decisions which are cited (see Appendix A.), turned on
similar clauses in the previous Acts, Geo. IV. c. Ki, s. 48^
and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, ss. 28, 29, and 12 & 18 Vict. c. lOG,
ss. 168 and 169 (p).

Sect. 15, sub-.sect. 2, of the Act of 1869, states that, "The
tools (if any) of his (the bankrupt's) trade, and the necessary
wearing apparel and bedding of himself, his wife, and children,
to a value, inclusive of tools and apparel and bedding, not
exceeding twenty pounds in the whole," do not pass to the

Attaxliiuent of Witgen.

The Wages Attachment Abolition Act of 1870, the 33 &
34 Vict. 30, sect. 1, enacts "that, after the passing of this
Act, no order for the attachment of the wages of any servant,
labourer, or workman shall be made by the jndge of any
Court of Record or inferior Court" {q).

Executors, Legacies, d-c.

Notwithstanding some dicta to the contrary, servants do
not seem entitled to any preference for their wages from
executors (r). It was in effect laid down by Lord Hardwicke
in Richardson v. Greese(s), that, contrary to the well-known
rule of equity, legacies to servants were not to be taken to
be in satisfaction of debts due to them for Avages ; but the
true view appears to be, that while a legacy equal to or in
excess of such a debt will be taken to be in satisfaction of

(p) See Appendix A. 17 Ch. D. 70; Gonhm v. Jrnninqs

(q) Salary payable qnarterly, and (1882), L. K. 9 Q. B. D. 45 ; 46 L.

not due until afuture date, cannot be T. 534 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 417 : (salary

ittachcd nnder ()rd. XXIV., it. 3 & 4, of £200 a year of a secretary to a

of County Court Rules; Jlall v. coinpany not "wages" of a "servant "

Pritchdt (1877), L. K. 3 Q. B. D. within the Act).

215 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 15 ; 37 L. T. (r) Willianas on Executors, 1029 n.

J71 ; Ex parte Wicks (1831), L. K. (s) (1743), 3 Atk. 69.



it, the Court will infer a contrary intention from slight
circumstances. Thus, a legacy bequeathed by an old lady
to a servant Avas held by Lord Hardwicke to be not in satis-
faction of wages due, because the legacy was made payable
one month after the death of the testatrix (t).

Presumption of Payment of Wages.

Claims for wages are subject to the Statutes of Limitations,
21 James I., c. 16, and (as to seamen's wages) to 4 Anne^
c. 16, ss. 17, 18, and 19, and are barred within six years.
In one case a steward, who had permitted his master to
retain his salary from time to time in his hands, was allowed
after his master's death in an administration action to claim
an account of arrears of twenty yems (u). It is laid down in
several cases, that if a servant has left his employer's service
a considerable time without making a claim for wages, payment
of all wages will be presumed. Such a view was stated by
Abbott, C.J. (r), Parke, B. (./■), and Gaselee, J. (y) ; but the
proposition does not appear to be one of law, but merely an
inference of good sense, almost irresistible in the case of
servants who are wont to be paid weekly or at other short

(/) Cited in iVatheus v. Mallicvs
(17.0.5), 2 Ves. Sen. at p. 63(5 ; Wil-
liams on Executors, 1304 ; Koper on
Legacies, 1053.

(») Rr. Hawkhis (1880), 28 "W.
i;. 240. (It was the practice of a
master and steward to allow the
steward to retain his salary out of
money in his hands ; in an action Ly
executor of master, held that the
steward might claim in account liis
salary for twenty years.) See also
Jinn'acr v. 7>/t/W.'/^ (1881), L. K. 18
Cli. D. 254. Rishton v. Grissell
(1870), L. K. 10 Eq. 393 ; 18 W. 11.
821. (The plaintiff, defendant's ma-
nager, was lield not entitled, in

ahsence of fraud, to interest on each
overhalance front the year at which it
was ascertained, hut only from the
time of demand). Pcarsc v. Green
(181!)), 1 .Tac. & W. 135 ; Ted v. Bceix
ri85!i), 24 L. J. Ch. 782.

(r) See ,SV//cH- v. Korman (1820),
4 ('. k V. 81 n ; Litatfi v. Xodisi-
lisld (17it5), 1 Esp. 290. Interest not
allowed on claims for work and lahour;
'f I'll ate niji V. Tlmmas (178'.)), 1 II. I>.
303 ; Mi/soni
Price 134.

(x) <ii)U(/h V,


(v) Srllrn V. Aorman (1829), 4 C.
k r. 80.

Hoimrd (1821), 9
Fhulon (1851), 7 Ex.



Insurance of War/ci^.

Insurance of seamen's wages is invalid as being contrary
to public policy (ft). On the other liand, it was always per-
missible for a master to insure liis wages (b).

(a) The Juliana (1882), 2 Dod.
509 ; The Neptune (1824), 1 Hag.

[h) King v. Glover (1806), 2 B. &
P. N. K. 206. Seanieu were uot al-

loweil to iusuie their wages, < liieflj'
because tlicir wages (lependod <m
eaniiiig freight. This being no longer
the case, is the rule in force ?



Ex :parte Xeal (1829), Mont. &
Mac. 194. Traveller engaged at
annual salary, within G Geo. IV., c.
l(i, s. 48.

Ex parte Goiujh (1833), 3 D. &

C. 189 ; Mont. & Bli. 417. A
clerk, though at the time lie Avas
engaged his master was not a
trader within the meaning of the
Bankru))tcy Acts, if the petitioner
was, in fact, at the time of the com-
mission, clerk to such a trader.

Ex parte Hurnjjhreys (1833), 3

D. & C. 114 ; Mont. & Bli. 413. A
general hiring of a clerk, with the
reservation that the wages are to
he paid weekly within 6 Geo. IV.,
c. 16, s. 48.

Ex parte Colhicr{\SU), 2 ^lont. &
A. 29 ; 4 D. & C. 520. A manager
of a cotton mill paid so much a
year in weekly sums.

Ex parte ,S'a»(:?er.s (183G), 2 Mont.
& A. 684 ; 2 Dea. 40. A clerk
compelled to leave the Imnkrupt's
service several months before the
bankruptcy on account of his
master's inabilitj' to pay salary,
and his master having assigned all

Not Servant.

Ex p)nrte Grellier (1831), Mont.
264, reversing Mont. & Mac. 95.
Under 6 Geo. IV., c. 16, s. 48. The
workmen of a coach-maker who
worked by the piece, and who got
a specific sum for each job.

Ex parte Craicfoot (1831), Mont.
270. Weekly labourers, excava-
tors, bricklayers.

Ex parte Skinner (1833). Mont.
& Bli. 417. Guard of a coach at
weekly Avages not witliiu 6 Geo.
IV., c. 16, s. 48. See Ex i)urte
Collyer, correcting the report of this
case. The hiring need ni it be for a
year, but must be of longer dura-
tion than a week.

Ex inirtc Bennett {\HZ^),'i Mont.
& A. 669. A clerk who voluntarily
leaves insolvent master not within
G Geo. IV., c. 16, s. 48.

Ex parte Gee [\S-i<i)),Mon\. k C.
99. A clerk who has involuntarily
quitted the bankrupt's service
nine months previous to the tiat
by reason of the approaching in-
solvency and the decreasing busi-
ness of the bankrupt, the clerk in
the meanwhile getting employ-



his estates and etlect.s ; cutitleil to
.'^ix inontlis' \va;4es.

Ex ]iart>' Hiiinlnmi (1842), 2
Mont. ] ). & l)c' ( i . ()42." The mate of
a vessel hired by master, wlio was
part owner, within sec. 48 of 6 Geo.
iV., c. IG.

Ex parte i/.OTix (1845), 9 Jiir.
497 ; DeGex, IGj. Clerk entitled,
tlionj,di absent from business owini,'
to ill health for three montlis
before the bankruptcy.

Ex parte Hickin (1850), 14 Jur.
405 ; 3 De. G. & S. iHii. Petitioner
entered service of banki'Upt as
book-keeper and cashier in 1844 ;
continued as such until December,
1848, without coming to agreement
as to salary. It was then agreed
that the salary should be £250 a
year from 1844 ; the reason why
no earlier arrangement was made
being that the bankrupt led peti-
tioner to believe that he should
share in the profits of a certain

Ex parte Oldham (1858), 32 L.
T. 181. A clerk to a custom house
agent, engaged his evenings in the
bankrupt's services, held entitled
to allowance under 1G8 sec. of
Act of 1849.— Commissioner Goul-

Ex parte Chi2)chasc (1862), 11
W. K. 11 ; 7 L. T. N. S. 290. A
city editor of a newspaper em-
ployed at a weekly salary ; engage-
ment terminable at month's notice.

Not Servant.
ment elsewhere, not within the

Ex parte Hall (185.3), 3 Dc G. M.
& G. 155. " Drawers " who were
paid by and attached to the colliers
employed by the bankrupt, and
who were in attendance on the

Ex parte Siuinwns (1858), 30 L.
T. 311. A clerk paid by commis-
sion on the goods sold by him, and
not at a iixed salary, not within
sec. 168 of Act 1849.— Commis-
sioner Fane.

Ex parte Butler (1857), 28 L. T.
M. 375. A pers(jn wlio was em-
ployed as accountant at an annual
salary of £120, and who was the
petitioning creditor in res])ect of
salary upon which the adjuilication
issued, not a servant within 168
sec. of Act of 1849. — Com-
missioner Goulburn.

Ex parte Harcourt (1858), 31 L.
T. 188. A singer at a tavern not
Avithin the Act of 1849. — Commis-
sioner Fane.

Ex parte Walter (1873), L. R.
15 Eq. 412 ; 42 L. J. B. 49 ; 21
"W. R. 523. A non-resident music-
master and a drill-sergeant engaged
to attend a school twice a week at
a certain rate per hour or per
lesson, not preferential creditors
within sec. 32, sub-sec. 2 of the
Act of 1869.

Ex parte Ha mptaon ( 1 842), 2 ]\Iont .
D. & Dc (i. 462. Question con-
sidere<l but not decided, whether
misconduct by servant or clerk is
a good ground for refusing pay-

In Ex parte Harnpson, 2 ^lont. 1). & De G.. ]>. 468, it was said that a
clerk must wait till there is a sutiicient sum for i.ayment of his demand
after the expenses of working the liat have been provided.

.Servants are not bound to wait until the trustee has examined the
debtor as to his aflairs : Ex parte I'ovi.t (1873), L. R. 17 Eq. 130. See
as tf) proof for ])roportion of salarv, which woidd have accnied after
winding up, Yellamrs Case (1867), L. II. 4 Eq. 350 ; Clark\-i Case (1869),
L. R. 7 E(i. 550 ; 38 L. .1. Cli. 562 ; 20 ].. T. N. S. 774 ; Ex parte Lbinvi
Coal Co. (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. Ap. 28.



It is tlie duty of a mas^ter to receive his servant
into his employment, and to retain him in his service
for the time agreed upon.

In the absence of circumstances showing an intention or
custom to the contrary, hiring will be presumed to be for a
year (a), or, as it is often expressed, general hiring or hiring
when no term is fixed is presumed to be a yearly hiring.
This presumption, it has been said, was established in order
to give master and servant the benefit of all the seasons (h).
A more probable explanation of it is that it arose in conse-
quence of the statutory enactment (5 Eliz. c. 4, sections 3
and 7, and other statutes), long in force, that hirings should
be by the year. The presumption is limited, according to
some judges, to servants in husbandry (c) ; but the weight
of authority appears to show that it is applicable to

(rt) Coke Litt. 42 b. : " If a man iiiontlily wages) ; Turner \. Bobinson

retain a servant generally without (1833j, 2 N. & M. 829 ; Huttman

expressing any time, the law shall v. Boulnois (1826), 2 C. & P. 510 ;

construe it to be for one year, for Crccn v. H'rUjlit (1876), L. R. 1 C.

that retainer is according to law." P. 1). 591. In America a general

Faiccctt V. Cash (1834), 3 N. & M. hiring is regarded as prima facie

177 ; 5 B. & Ad. 904. (Hiring a hiring at will. Wood, 272.

of a warehou-seman, wages payable (b) Story on Contracts, s. 1290.

monthly.) Bccston v. Collycr {IS27), (c) Huttman \. Boulnois, see note

4 Ring. 309; 12 Moore, 552; 2 C. («\
& P. ' 607 : (hiring of a clerk at


all kinds of servants (d). It exists whether a contract be
in writing or not (e), and even if it be conditional (/).

This presumption is not irrebuttable (g) ; it may be dis-
placed by stipulations in the contract as to times of payment,
or by other circumstances. It does not exist when there
really is no hiring or agreement to retain. Thus, in Bayley
V. liimmell(Ji), the plaintiff served the defendant as as-
sistant surgeon for nearly half a year without a specific
contract of hiring ; and had been paid various sums at no
fixed periods. He fell ill and did not return to his employ-
ment. In an action by the plaintiff for remuneration, on
behalf of the defendant it was contended that he could
not recover anything, as tlie hiring was for a year.
But the Court decided that the plaintiff might re-
cover on a quantiiin onentit for the services which he
had actually performed. lu practice the presumption is no
sure guide. No precise rules on the subject can be laid
down ; each case must be considered by itself. The following
considerations, however, may be useful as guides : (1.)
The circumstance that payment of wages takes place weekly
or monthly is strongly in favour of the vicAv that a hiring
is for a week or a month ; if this circumstance stand by
itself, it will be conclusive as to the duration of the con-
tract (i). (2.) This fact may be modified by others, as was
pointed out in Davis v. Marshall (Jc). Yearly servants often
stipulate for the payment cf their wages at short intervals ;
and an arrangement to pay weekly or monthly may be merely
for the convenience of a yearly servant. (3.) The nature of

{(l) Lillcy V. £';»irt (1848), 11 Q. (</) Sec Tindal, C. J., in Baxter x.

B. 742 ; Turner v. liobinson, see Nurse, see note (</), (liiring of editor
note (o) ; Holcroflv. Barber (1843), of a new i)eriodical), and Pollock,
IC. & K. 4 ; Baxter v. (1844), C. B., in Foirmanv. Oakford (18C0),
1 C. & K. 10 ; 6 M. & G. 938 ; 13 L. 5 II. k N. 635 ; 29 L. J.' Ex. 459.

J. C. P. 82. (/i) (1836), 1 M. k. W. 506.

(c) Eldcrton v. Emmcns (1847— (i) R. v. ,St. Andrew's (1828), 8 R.

1853), 4 C. 15. 479 ; 6 C. B. 160 ; 13 & C. 679 ; It v. Newtun (1788), 2

C. B. 495 ; 4 H. of L., 624. T. K. 453, j)r.r Jiullcr, J. So in R.
(/) R. V. Sandhurst (1827), 7 P.. v. Doddcrhill (1814), 3 M. & S. 243.

&C. 557; R. v. Byktr (\i,2Z), 2 B. {k) (1861), 4 L T. li. S. 216;

&C. 114. 9 \V. K. 520.


the employment must also be taken into account. It makes
a material difiference in this point of view, whether the ser-
vant be a labourer or a secretary, an editor or a sub-editor
or an accountant. It is improbable that persons of education
holding highly paid offices would consent to very short terms
of engagement. (4.) Custom often governs the matter. Thus,
in an action for wrongful dismissal of the editor of a periodical,
evidence was given that it was the usage that editors, sub-
editors, and reporters, and all who arc regularly employed
upon a newspaper, iu supplying a particular department, are
engaged for a year, unless there is an express agreement to
the contrary (?7i). See Holer oft v. Barber (n), (5.) Service
for more than a year without an express contract of hiring,
or under a contract, but for no definite period, will be evidence
of a yearly hiring, even if the contract be conditional (o).

There is an important peculiarity of the hiring of domestic
or menial servants. By a long and well established custom,
it is settled that in the absence of any agreement to the
contrary, their hiring is for a year and subject to determina-
tion on a month's notice by either or payment of a month's
wages by the employer. " In the case of domestic ser-
vants," said Littledale, J., in Faivcett v. Cask {jj), "the rule
is well established that the contract may be determined by
a month's notice or a month's wages." The month's wages
are to be regarded as the maximum damages. Who are
domestic or menial servants has been the subject of a con-
siderable number of actions which are referred to below {r).

(m) Baxter v. Nurse, see note (c^). to his directions, and not living in

(n) (1843), 1 C. & K. 4. tlic master's dwelling-house but on

(o) li. V. Lyth (1773), 5 T. K. 327 ; his grounds.) Johnson v. Blcnlaisop

R. V. PcndUtoii (1812), 15 East, 449 ; (1841), 5 Jur. 870. (A servant hired

R. V. Worjicld (1794), 5 T. E. 50(j ; to keep the gardens and pleasurc-

R. V. Bykcr (1823), 2 V>. & C. 114. grounds in order, to assist in the

See Appendix. stables, and to make himself generally

(j:?) Sec note (rt) ; so Parke, B., iu useful.) NicoU v. Gmar,s (1864),

Ttmvcry. Mason {\Mb),li^l. k\\. 17 C. B. N. S. 27; 10 Jur. X. v«!.

Online LibraryJohn MacdonellThe law of master and servant. Part I.--Common law. Part II.-- Statute law → online text (page 19 of 77)