Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1884-06-20
Employer and Employed.

The hire of services is contract by
which the labor of person is given for
compensation or reward Out of this
contract arises the relation of employer
and employee, of which it is 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 were called me-
mails or domestics, because they resided
within the domain or yard of their mas
ter, although not necessarily within the
house. This name also applied to gard
enerS, grooms and others. and it has
been held to apply to huntsman who
did not reside within the yard. The
positions of governess, housekeeper and
laborer on the farm, were regarded as
superior to mental servants.
In this country no such distinction is
maintained, and the only question is
whether there was a hiring, and If so,
on what terms and for what length of
time. The law places contracts for
labor on the same footing as other con-
tracts; the employed must perform his
part of the contract according to the
agreement, and in return the employer
man hires laoorer to work on his
ia m, and another person. knowing of
the contract of employment, cntices,
hires or persuades the laborer to leave
the service of the first employer during
the time for which he was employed,
the law gives to the party injured
right of action against The other.
Every contract for the hire of serv-
irac Whnt har for n month
an indefinite time, is subject TO the
right of the employer to discharge the
employe if sufficient cause exists for so
doing. Of course dismissal for sufficient
cause will prevent re overy of the
future salary, and in England the en-
ploye forfeits the salary which he has
already earned. 1t Is not so in this
country. Here he may recover the
value of his services already rendered.
1t is difficult to tell what will be mis-
conduct sufficient to Justify discharge.
Some cases hold there must be on the
part Of the servant either moral mis-
conduct, pecuniary or Otherwise, will
ul disobedIence or habitual neglect.
Whether q servant was rightf1lly 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 we would not in another. Inso-
lent anguage might be good cause for
| dismissal in one case, when under other
circumstances it might not. A servant
was discharged for trespassing upon the
premises of third person, and IL was
held a sufficient ground for dismissal.
though no injury resulted from the
trespass. The discharge of a railway
clerk for disclosing the accounts Of
the company to another company
| is justinable. Generally it may be said
that servant may be rightfully dis
charged for any breach, express or i'm
piled, of tho contract of service. The
following causes have been held suf-
ticient to justify discharge: The COM
mission of felony by the servant,
although not against the property or
person Of his employer; using insolent
Ian 2uage to the employer or to mem;
bers of his family; refusing to obey a
lawful order OF the employer; gross
immortality; habitual drunkenness, or
perhaps even single act of drunkenness;
quarrelling with a fellow eraploye; OBJ
scene or blasphemous lapSNaSe in the
/ presence of the empforvr's fairly, or
in the presence of OF. ser servants. dis
closing the secrets Of the employers
trade or business n betraying the en-
ployer's confidence; fraudulent conduct
in respect to the employers
business; cmbezzling the employ
er's goods or money; habituas
careles ness or negligence; refusing
to work at harvest, unless the employer
furnishes beer; engaging in business m
furious to the business of the empaoyer.
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 to do some unlaw-
| full or fraudulent act, the case is differ
ent. and discharge in consequence of
such refusal is unjustiiable. The same
is true if the service is unreasonable. A
servant is bound to use due care in the
business iu which he is employed, and
should use sufficient care to protect his
masters property from injury. II he
does not do this, he may be discharged
for habitual negligence. Yet he is not
bound to protect his masters property
at all hazards, nor is he liSble for ordi-
nary accidents. II the servant has been
guilty of misconduct, and the master.
knowing it, still retains him in his SER
vice. it is presumed that he has con-
doned the offense. But IL there has
been proper excuse for the delay in dis
| charging the servant, then there Il no
presumptio on that the offense is for
given. Addison @. McKeaz,, N Ccxss.
f,-u (yeuIenz0r