The Panola weekly star. (Sardis, Miss.) 1882-18??, 1884-06-28
Employer aud Employed.

Tho hire of services Is q contract by
which the labor of u person is given for
compensation or reward Out OF this
contract arises the relation of employer
md emp!oyc, Of which IL il the purpose
Of this article TO treat. The division of
servants into classes or grades which
obtained in England many years ago.
is somewhat amusing. Those employed
for domestic service we're called me-
malls or domcstics, because they resided
within the domain OF yard OF their mas
ter. although not necessarily within the
house. This name also applied 10 gard
cncrs, grooms and others. aud it has
been held 10 apply 10 n huntsman who
did not reside within the yard. The
positions Of goycrncss, housekceper and
laborcr on the farm, were regarded as
superior 10 mental servants.
In this country no such distinction is
maintained, and the only question IL
whether there was q hiring. and II SO.
ON whit terms and for what length Of
time, Pic law places contracts for
labor on the same footing rs other con-
tracts; the employed must perform his
part Of the contract according to tho
agreement, and in return the employer
must pay the contract price. II one
man hires u laboror TO work on his
farm. and another person, knowing of
the contract OF employment. e%nticcs,
hires or p~ersuadcs the laborsr to leave
the service Of the first employer during
the time for which he was employed,
the law gives to the party injured u
right OF action against the other.
Every contract for the hire OF scrv-
lees, whether for n month. = year, or
an indefinite time, Is subject to the
right Of the employer to discharge tho
employee If sufficient cause exists for so
doing. OF course dismissal for sufficient
cause will prevent no aovery Of tho
future salary. and in England the en-
ploye f%orfeits the salary which he has
already earned. II IL not so In this
country. Here he may o the
value Of his services already rendered.
II Is difficult Ia tell what will be mis-
conduct sufficient TO Justify discharge.
Some eases hold there must be- on tho
part Of tho servant either moral mis-
conduct, pecuniary or otherwise. will
ful disobedlcnce or habitual neglect.
Whether q servant was righttally dis
charged depends upon the nature Of his
duties aud the terms of his employ
ment. We might discharge a servant
for his acts of omission in one case
when wa would not in another. Inso-
lent language might be good cause for
dismissal in M case. when under other
circumstances Il might not. A servant
was discharged for trcspassing upon the
premises OF q third person. and 1t was
held n sufficient ground for dismissal.
though no injury resulted from the
trcspass. Tho discharge OF n railway
clerk for disclosing the accounts Of
the company 20 another company
is ~justihabla Generally i may be said
that q servant may be rightfully dis
charged FOR any breach, express or I'M
piled. OF tho contract OF service. Tho
following causes have been held suf-
iioient TO justify n discharge: The com.
mission OF a felony by the servant
although not against the property or
person Of hrs employer; using ~insolcnt
language to the employer or to mcm-
bars of his family; refusing to obey a
lawful order OF the employer; gross
immortality; habltual drunkenness. or
perhaps even q single act ofdrunkenness;
quarrelling with a fellow employe; ob.
scene or blasphemous language in the
presence Of the employers family, or
In the presence OF other servants; dis
closing the secrets OF the employers
trade or business. or bctraying the EN-.
ployer's confidence; fraudulent conduc,
in respect 10 the emplover's
business; ~cmbczzling the employ.
cr's goods or money; habitum,
carcles sness or negligence: refusing
TO work ut harvest, unless the employer
furnishes beer; engaging in business m
furious to tho business Of the cmployer.
A servant is bound TO obey all reason
able commands Of his employer, and to
do such work as he was hired to do
II the command be 10 do some unlaw.
ful or fraudulent act. the case IL diler.
cnt, and q discharge in consequence Of
such refusal IL unjustifable. The same
Is true II the service Is unreasonable. A
servant y bound to uss due care In The
business IN which he is employed. and
should use sufficient cars 20 protect bis
masters property from injury. n he
does not do this. he may be discharged
for habitual negligence. Yet be l. not
bound 10 protect his masters property
all hazards. ner L he liable fer erdIl
nary accidents. lfthe scrvantAas been
guilty Of misconduct. and the master,
knowing u. still retains him In his SER
vice. u i presumed that n h-s en-
dssed the cfens-. But n there has
bees proper excsss for he duiay In dis.
charging the servant thrn here . No
presumpson thai the ofsnse l. for
gwen. -4dasses q. Asksza. u coaa.