San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1888-11-29
MASTER AND SERVANT.
POINTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONS
OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYE.
Contract for Services and Its Response
bilities-Redress for NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
and Hazardous Observation-Disclosures

bilities-Redress for NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
and Hazardous Observation-Disclosures
Made by servants-Notice Required.
Has person who is hired by the year any
claim on the employer for care or attention
during innessF'
Legally, no. The illness Of the servant
breaks the contract, and the employer may
engege other help. The employee cannot en-
force any claim to the place again after re-
coveqy The reason for this is that the
employer cannot jeopardize his business in
terests by holding place open for an indef
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 contract with ~ervantsr'
They are not. The contract for service,
and all responsibilities sttaching 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 negi-
gcnce on the part Of the servantsT'
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
hns property, it Is only waste of time to in
s2itute legal proceedings, unless the otfense
Is one that demands punishment on the
ground of protection to public interests"
"lf n servant hires for given time, to do
0 certain kind a 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 be
paid for the time so consumed, and at a rate
adjudged fair for such occupations. For
e1ample Should you hire man at given
sum, ~ cook, and keep him employed for
some weeks as errand boy, you must pay him
the wages agreed upon; but should you then
unable to do his work properly, he cannot
demand cooks wages if he returns volun.
tarily to his position as errand boy. His
failure to cook as agreed has made a new
contract necessary"
Are employers .held responsible for acct
dents to servents from dangerous surround
ingSF'
of a servent engages in an occupation
81, 70, 70 li,,,h
not know Of his danger, or is not warned of
it, the employer is responsible. If the ser
want is aware Of danger, and continues in the
service, be does SO at his own personal risk
For example: Men who work in powder or
dynamite mills and similar places, do SO
with full knowledge of their danger, and
take tho responsibility upon themselves"
So the servant, when he takes a position
with knowledge of its dangers, may be said
TO contribute to his own injuries or mis-
lortu&esT
Precisely so; and, in the same way, ii
he uses tools or appliances that he
knows to be unsafe, he exposes himself
to injury and cannot recover damages in
case of personal harm. He may leave the
service if he fears to work under such cir
cumstances; but should he remain. he alone
is responsible for resulting injury"
SIS an employer held accountable for the
acts Of his servantp
ITO an extent he IS, while the servant is
engaged in the direct line of his duty; but he
is not accountable for damage done Will.
the servant is pursuing his own pleasure or
convenience. For instance: 4 delivery
wagon ran over child 1t was proven that
the driver had taken the wagon out without
orders, to carry some articles for members
of his own family. Therefore the owner was
not held for damages, the vehicle not being
engaged in his business or under his orders,
LIS it was held that under such circumstances
Tho man was not his servant"
"ls an employer responsible for debts con
tracted by servants while in his employ and
acting as lis agents"
Under ordinary circumstances the court
would hold them accountable. If a servant
is in the habit of going to a store to purchase
articles for the use Of the family, and has done
SO at the masters orders, he is accountable for
such debts until the tradesman is notified to
the contrary. Notice of this sort should always
be given; otherwise, servants might change
places and continue to buy articles, having
them charged to the late employer until some
circumstance brought out the fact that the
buyer was no longer 50 employed"
But the servant would be held account
able, l suppoSeF
Certainly, for misdemeanor, and might
be subject 20 fine or imprisonment, or botn'
IS. 8. N" in Demorest's Monthly
Monitor Class OF War Vessels.
"a