Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1888-11-10
MASTER AND SERVANT.
POINTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONS
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLoYE.
bflities-Redress for NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
and Hazardous cupations-Purchases
Made by servants-yotice Required.

Made by servants-yotice Required.
"Has person who is hired by the year any
claim on the employer for care or attention
during illnessp
Legally, no. The illness of the servant
breaks the contract and the employer may
engage other help The employe cannot en-
force any claim to the place again after re-
covery. The reason for this is that the
employer cannot jeopardize his business in
terests by holding place open for an indeh-
mite time. He is supposed to keep no more
| help than he needs, and is not required to
| tnrn away good servant who has taken the
| place of one who has been obliged to give up
| the work on account of illness. This rule is
not, however, strictly adhered to- as employ
ers are quite likely to make places for former
employees, especially if they have proven
| themselves capable and Trustworthy"
| "Are an employers heirs bound to con-
tinue a contract with servants'"
| "They are not The contract for service,
and all responsibilities attaching to it. are
Cancelled by the death of either party. This
is an implied condition in all contracts for
service"
HAS an employer any redress for injuries
to his property through willfulness or negli-
gence on the part of the seryantsp
None; that is, none of any actual benefit
to him There is a provision of law that
provides for certain acts, misdemeanors or
malicious mischief; but unless the servant
has property, it is only waste of time to in
stitute legal proceedings, unless the otfense
is one that demands punishment on the
ground of protection to public interests"
l sIf M fr,c fa,- inn RI n
a certain kind work, and when tried, is
found incapable. can the employer be com
PEELED to pay wages, or keep the person in
said employment until the time contracted
for expiresf'
Certainly not Inability to perform the
labor agreed upon cancels the contract. The
servant may not receive any compensation
for labor not properly performed. If, how
ever, after failing in the task agreed upon,
he is kept at work that he can do, he must te
paid for the time so consumed, and at a rate
adjudged fair for such occupations. Fol
example: Should you hire man at given
sum, as cook, and keep him employed fol
some weeks as errand boy, you must pay hin
the we3;-s agreed upon; but should you theI
put him into the cooks place, and find hin
unable to do his work properly, he caDno
t demand cooks wages if he returns volun
tarily to his position as errand boy. Hi
failure to cook as agreed has made new
: contract necessary"
"Are employers ,held responsible for acci
} dents to servents from dangerous surround
| ingsF'
g "If a servent engages in an occupation
: which is hazardous to life or limb, and doe
not know of his danger, or is not warned 0
e it, the employer is responsible. If the SCI
: want is aware of danger. and continues in tn
i service, he does so at his pwn personal risk
J, For example: Men who work in powder o
: dynamite mills, and similar places, do S
with full knowledge of their danger, an
= take the responsibility upon themselves"
s 80 the servant, when he takes a positio
d with knowledge of its dangers, may be sal
t to contribute to his own injuries or mi.
Il fortunesF'
/ Precisely so; and, in the same way,
n he uses tools or appliances that h
IS knows to be unsafe, be exposes himse
to injury and cannot recover damages
5 case of personal harm. He may leave tt
it service if he fears TO work under such ci
10 cumstances, but should he remain be alor
9 is responsible for resulting injury
Ii is an employer held accountable for IL
u acts of his servautn
81 ITO al extent be is, while the servant
', engaged in the direct line of his duty; but /
a is not accountable for damage done viii
the servant is pursuing his own pleasure I
n convenience For instance: A deliver
wagon ran over a child. II was proven th,
Ii the driver had taken the wagon out withol
70 orders, to carry some articles for membe
of his own family. Therefore the owner W,
d not held for damages, the vehicle not beir
n engaged In his business or under his order
II as it was held that under such circumstanc
he the man was not his servant"
N ''Is an employer responsible for debts CO
;" tracted by servants while in his employ ar
N acting as bis agents"
g Under ordinary circumstances the cou
at would hold them accountable. If a serval
rs is in the habit of going to store to purcha
SO articles for the use of the family and has dol
n so at the master orders. he is accountable f
n such debts until the tradesman is notified
thecontrary Notice of this sort should alwa
Is be given; otherwise, servants might cham
re places and continue to buy articles, havil
@ them charged to the late employer until sor
1e circumstance brought out the fact that t
OF buyer was no longer so employed
y But the servant would be held accour
W able, supposed"
es Certainly, for a misdemeanor, and mig
e. be subject to fine or imprisonment, or bott
ID IS. S. M in Demorest's Monthly.