The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-11-25 00:00:00

'hen he is dis-

licult to give
t as

harge without the month's wages; but
doubt that insolence, disobedience of leciti-

unkenness, dishonesty, immoral conduct,
neglect of duty, or violent temper, would disentitle the
servant to the claim to a month's wages; on the other band,
occasional carelessness, forgetfulness, inattention, untidi-
ness, ill health, indifferent or disobliging temper, would not
be a forfeiture of the wages.

mate orde

A servant discharged for such gross misconduct, strictly
speaking, not only forfeits the month's wages, but also his
accruing wages ; but it is usual to pay him, pro raid, for the

e of servic

A servant has no right to his livery on his dismissal, either
by warning or otherwise; if, however, he has been permitted
to keep his old livery when his new one becomes due, this
would be considered as evidence of an agreement to that
effect, and the master could not compel the servant to give
up an old livery in his possession at the time of his discharge,
although he might that of the current half year.
The custom of giving the month's warning or the month's
wages only applies to the hiring menial or domestic servants,
sa that when the hiring of a clerk, tutor, governess, traveller,

bailiff, &c., is by the gear, withoUt any stipulation as to the
mode of putting an end to the contract, the party hired has

. -
a right to continue in the service for the whole current year,
provided he conducts himself properly ; and if discharged
without reasonable cause, might claim the whole year's
salary, although dismissed before the termination of it; and
on the other hand, if he leaves the service without reasonable
cause, he would forfeit all claim to remuneration for such
portion of the year as he may have been actually in service.
The seine principle would apply
when the salary is payable
half-yearly or quarterly, so tar as regards the right to, or the
forfeiture of, the current salary. In such cases it is very
important to reduce to writing the express terms of the con-
tract, to enable either party to put an end to the service on a
reasonable notice.

• Most people are very indulgent in giving the characters of
servants; we are unwilling to deprive them of that on which
their livelihood depends ; we recollect they may have many
trials and temptations, that fault may be corrected ; that they
have no means of compelling their masters to give a cha-
racter at all; we should, therefore, certainly not exaggerate
their feelings, while at the same time the truth should
not be concealed. If we do err on this point, we err on the
right side.

-""
It is, however, an ill-judged lenity to overlook too often
a fault that, if repeated leads to a habit. Take, for instance,
drunkenness, certainly not an uncommon and decidedly one
of the most difficult habits to overcome: It is surely a greater
act of kindness to discharge the servant on the first or second
accusation, than allow the habit to be formed, by which the
character of sobriety is lost.

ion will lie against the master for giving a bad cha-
ant, even although it be a false one, unless ex-
' The giving a char

racer of a ser
press malice be provet

ter to one who

asks for it, is in the nature of a privileged communication.
It is both sought for and given for a legitimate purpose ; it is
intended to be confidential and will be assumed to be given
bona fide, and without malice. Few would venture to give
the true character of a bad servant, if be might be called
upon in court to prove his statement. It is only when
the character is false and maliciously given, that the party
is liable to an action. It is to be hoped few such ins
exist

It would be extremely difficult to prove express malice ;
but the giving a bad character of a servant to a person about
to engage him, who has not applied for any character at all,
might be considered as sufficient proof of malice. Such a
voluntary and uncalled-for interference would certainly, un-
less explained, justify such an inference.
If any person make it a rule never to take a written cha-
racter, or to give a second character of the same servant. It
is easy to lay down general rules, when a strict adherence to
them dues not affect ourselves; but there may be many in-
stances where the refusal to give a second character might be
highly prejudicial to a good servant, and the objection to
take a written character, when its truth and authenticity are
undoubted, would be equally absurd.
A written character should certainly not be given to the
'servant himself, unless under very peculiar circumstances, as
it might be misapplied, and in general the same object is ob-
tained by sending the written character to the person apply-
ing; but a strict adherence to this rule would sometimes be
a hardship, as, for instance, when a master is going abroad
or a long period, and discharges a good servant for no fault.

THE LIABILITY OF MASTERS FOEI. THE

ACTS OF THEIR

SERVANTS

The master is liable for any damage occasioned by the neg-
ligence or misconduct of his servant, provided the negligence
or misconduct arises in the course of the servant's employ-
ment. Thus, if a servant, by negligently driving his master's
carriage, or riding his horse, occasion an injury, the master
is liable for the damage arising from such negligence.
But the master is not liable for the wilful or malicious act
of his servant, not done in the execution of his master's
orders, as where a servant wilfully strikes another person's
horses, and thereby causes an accident, the master would not
be liable: as also when a servant has no business with his
master's horses, or who, contrary to his orders, uses them,
and in so doingcauses an injury to another, the master would
not be liable.

Neither can a master be made liable for the acts of a person
who is only under his temporary control and employment,
and who is not strictly speaking his servant ; thus a person
who hires a carriage and horses by the day with a driver, the
hirer would not be responsible for any damage occasioned by
the negligence of the driver ; for although he may be under
the temporary control of the hirer, he is not so completely
his servant as to render him liable for his acts. The jobman
in this case, whose servant the driver is, would be the party
liable.

Even where a driver and horses have been hired from a
jobman for a longer period, as for a month, 'and the hirer
found a livery for the driver, the hirer has been held not to
be liable. So also the postmaster, end •not the hirer, is
responsible for the neglect of the postboy. •
This principle of liability may be applied to other cases
where a damage or injury arises from the negligence or mis-
conduct of a servant, and it may be laid down as a general
rule that whenever the servant (being strictly speaking the
servant of the master) is under his control, and acting under
his orders, the master is liable for his acts.

The servant himself will be responsible whenever the act
amounts to a misleazance or tort, (or in other words not a
mere act of omission/, but it rarely happens that a person
who seeks a pecuniary compensation for an injury would ap-
ply for redress to the servant when the master is liable.

SERVANTS' PERQUISITES

The expense of an establishment is so much influenced by
servants, particularly in London, that some general observa-
tions on this head may not be deemed misplaced, although it
must be confessed it is much easier to point out the evil than
suggest a remedy.

The days c
servants were

tainly have_ gon
ch thn'

.y wrien the perquisites of
a gentleman could not dine out with-
nit price for his dinner, hut it is to be
-P.verely felt by the

Out paving an extravag

feared that some still existwhichilea

heads of houses

One of the most prominent evils in London that affect the
economy of an establishment, is the custom among trades-
people of paving the servants a per tentage or allowance on
the amount of their bills. This is considered a fair perqusite,
and almost claimed as a matter of right, when in fact it is
nothing less than a fraud, either upon the master or trades-
man.

It is a custom not confined to the inferior tradesman only,
but notoriously extends even to the most reswetable and beit
established houses; the former submit willingly to gain a

connexion, the latter are reluctantly obliged to do so, to keep
their custom. The master is in fact the sufferer, for allowing
the honest tradesman a fair profit only, he cannot afford to
deduct so large a per centage (seldom so little as five per
cent.) from his bill, and therefore the employer must
eventually pay the charge. But this is not the only evil, or
by any means the least ; the servant is directly interested in
the amount of the bill; he may not be sufficiently hardened
to allow false charges to be made, but he will not sufficiently
scrutinise, as he ought to do, weights and quantities, and,
above all, waste is encouraged to a great extent. It would
surprise many country gentlemen to hear that this practice
in London extends to butchers, bakers, fishmonger-
buttermen, green-grocers, &c., and that the i
cook claim their allowance from one set of tradesmen, the
butler or footman from another.

s, oilmen,

msekeeper or

Such being the fact, what is the remedy, and in whose
hands does it lie? The respectable tradesman will tell his
customer that he is equally anxious to put an end to the evil,
but that he is compelled to submit to it; to preserve his cus-
tom, he may consent in that particular case to discontinue it,
but he will warn his customer of the consequences—he must
be prepared to hear daily complaints of the article supplied.
Meat, fish, and vegetables can easily be spoilt in the kitchen;
the oil can be made to burn badly in the lamps, discontent-
ment will prevail. What is the master to do? He should
employ the most respectable tradesmen in his neighbourhood,
and let his servants know that he is determined to

every one of them rather than discard a single hor

man ; if he is proof against the complaints or th.
and, what is more difficult to bear, the badness of his
and can put up with the inconvenience of changing
his servants, he may succeed, but he must
patience and resolution will be severely tri
gain his point, he will find it worth the time ,
It may be suggested that putting the servants on board
wages would be a more desirable, and as effectual a remedy,
but it would not strike at the root of the evil, as the same
number of tradesmen must still be employed, though not
perhaps to the same extent.
There are many other perquisites whicl
reader, some of which partake of fraud
friends at the expense of the master. 11,.
servants consider tea and sugar as fair plus.
be surprised to hear this was cheating their ma,
may be added the practice of selling broken meat, ..--
is generally authorised by the master, though not to the e...
something
m thatetii
ifiargs t alludedto
the
cook's
,ist wouldwages
tent to which it is really carried on, it is not so great an evil
titoonthilel
poor. It would certainly do mo'rne and
good, odho be bad
and the difference
of the wages would probably be save ,bad economy to add
the consumption, as the temptation. tod wgbyialettheetvi,hd:oitimuidlteea se to
exist.

liners,
Dme of

Should he
d trouble.

ar to th

I, such as leastin;
Then mniin. man:

rand woad
Ler ; to these
hut as this

THE QUEEN AND HER PLOYLE•_Thrnug'uout the resi_
deuce of the Court at Wahner Castle, the Queen and Prince
Albert have enjoyed in privacy their early walks, great y to
the credit of the visiters and inhabitants of Deal, win, - -
duct in forbearing to intrude on the august visiters
most advantageously with the course pursued dui
Queen's last visit to Brighton, in which the Sorereigt
walks were subject to intrusion when in private, by
whose over zealous loyalty, however well intentioneo
for the convenience and pleasure of the illustrious
have been wisely deferred to more public occasions
be hoped, that at the approaching royal visit, t
pair may be free from similar mistimed d
attachment

ions of

STRAN---
AFFAIR.—A rumour reached us yesterday—too
late, however, for us to make all requisite inquiries that a
woman in Brimington, who has died this week, confessed
to having murdered her husband about 14 years ago. He was
found dead with his throat cut from ear to ear, and a razor
in his hand; and she acknowledged, just before death that
she cut the unfortunate man's throat, and then placed the
razor in his hand. Her motive was, that she might live with
another man, with whom she had continued to cohabit till
death ; and suspicion was excited at the time by the haste
with which she betook herself to the dwelling of her paramour
We are further informed that the latter has been apprehended
but how far that,
is eorre,' or noy other part of the horrible narrae

we at

Nest we

to say at present.
shall, it is probable, be able either to confirm or contradit.
the above statement, which we give
• —Derkshire Courier. precisely as it reached

our ear