Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

on new service immediately at the termination of his former engagement.1

The wages of domestic and farm servants are among the debts termed Privileged (see Part XIII. Chap. I. Sect. 1). Servants' wages prescribe in three years; that is to say, a servant has no action for wages three years in arrear, unless he can found on the master's writ or oath. (See Index, Prescription.)

SECT. 4.-Rights and Obligations of the Master.

The first obligation on the master is to receive the servant into his house at the specified period. If he do not receive him, or if he receive him but dismiss him before the first term, or the end of the engagement if there is one, without just cause, he will be liable to pay the servant full wages, and (if the servant had been engaged, to live in the family) board wages, or damages. What is a just cause for dismission is matter for discretion. Neglect to perform the duties agreed on or belonging to the situation, absence without leave for an inconvenient period, dissipation, moral misconduct in pecuniary matters or otherwise, and insults to any member of the family, are generally the justification of dismissal. A gardener in Fifeshire was dismissed for having gone to Edinburgh on Thursday and returned on Sunday, having been absent only two working days. He said he had gone on the business of his mistress, but it was proved to have been on his own. The sheriff found that the mistress was entitled to dismiss the servant. The Court of Session decided otherwise, but the decision of the House of Lords corresponded with that of the sheriff.3 A servant who had taken medicine, and received positive orders from her master not to leave home, went to church. She was dismissed, and the sheriff found the master liable in wages and board-wages. To this the Lord Ordinary adhered, but the court decided otherwise. The law in England appears to be less rigorously favourable to the master. In the case of a courier, hired at £10 per month, and dismissed, it was proved, on the part of the defendant, "that on getting into the carriage, at the stage before Padua, the defendant desired the plaintiff not to stop at a particular hotel, where they had been before, but to drive to another, but that he, notwithstanding, did stop at that hotel, and, when remon

4

Tait's J. P. 462.- Ibid. 463.-3 Crawford v. Reid, 13th March 1822, 1 Sh. 124.—1 Hamilton v. M'Lean, 9th December 1824,

strated with, said he had not been told, and at the second hotel appeared to be very sulky; and also, that he had neglected to come, on two or three occasions, when he had been rung for, and was insolent in his manner at Florence." "Mr Justice Parker told the jury that there was a contract for a year, with an implied agreement, that if there was any moral misconduct, either pecuniary or otherwise, wilful disobedience, or habitual neglect, the defendant should be at liberty to part with the plaintiff. His Lordship added, that in his opinion no such conduct had been proved, and that the plaintiff was entitled to his wages for the year."1

The right of the servant, if he is unjustifiably dismissed, is said to be to receive wages and board-wages; but it is more properly termed damages, and may in some circumstances be less than wages and board-wages. If he has gone immediately into new service, the emolument thence arising will be deducted, so that he may receive only what he has really lost by being turned from the old. Nay, inquiry will be made whether or not he could have procured employment; and if he has chosen to live in idleness, instead of occupying himself, the damages he is entitled to will be modified. In the case of the fire-stirrer of a glass-house, who had been dismissed, the justices of peace "found it presumed that the pursuer either was or might have been usefully employed for the fifty weeks he was out of service during the time libelled, and found that he could not be entitled to the same wages during that time that he might have been entitled to had he been at work; and therefore modified the wages to the half, and decerned for £17, 10s. sterling;' this was adhered to by the Court of Session.2 If the master dies during the engagement, the servant is entitled to full wages for the period for which he was engaged; but he must, if called on, fulfil the engagement to his master's representative. If not so called on, he may insist on being allowed to remain in the family, or claim board-wages.3

A master is not bound by any law to give a servant a character;" but if he injure the servant by giving a false character, he is liable to an action of damages for defamation. By statute a penalty of £20 is incurred by any person giving a servant a false character, but it is questioned if the act applies to Scotland.

1 Callo v. Brouncker, 13th January 1831, 4 Car. & Pay. 518.-2 Rae v. Leith Glass Co., 20th June 1750, M. 13989.-3 Tait's J. P. 465. Fraser, ii. 435.- Fraser, ii. 439.-5 32 Geo. iii. c. 56.

*

SECT. 5.-Apprentices.

Corporations and societies have generally peculiar regulations for the engagement of the apprentices of the members, to which, if they do not interfere with the law, the court gives effect. The exclusive trading privileges of these bodies are now abolished.2 The contract must be in writing, and must have the formalities of a solemn written deed. It must be stamped, and, by the stamp-laws, if the true fee be not stated, the indenture is void. An informal indenture may be rendered valid by homologation or rei interventus. Those who become apprentices being generally minors, the peculiar laws which regulate contracts by persons under age will in the usual case apply.§ If the apprentice be a pupil, he cannot contract, and a parent or tutor will have to take the whole responsibility of his fulfilling the engagement. If he be a minor above pupillarity, without curators, he can bind himself; but if it should turn out that the apprenticeship is inequitable, he may be relieved on the ground of minority and lesion.3 If the minor have curators, the indenture is void without their consent or acquiescence. Where a minor became bound as apprentice with his elder brother (whom he represented as his curator) as cautioner, and his real curator was not a party to the transaction, but was cognizant of the proceedings, and did not object to them, the indenture was held good.1

The essence of the mutual obligation generally is, that the master becomes bound for a stipulated number of years to keep the apprentice employed in learning his trade or profession in his place of business, sometimes also engaging to board him, sometimes to pay him wages. The apprentice becomes bound to serve and assist the master in his trade or profession, and sometimes engages to advance an apprentice fee. The indenture generally contains a penalty against either party breaking the terms; and there is usually a cautioner who becomes bound under a penalty for the apprentice's faithful performance of his duties. If the penalty in an indenture should be excessive, and far beyond remuneration for damage, it will be equitably restricted by the court.5

The duty of the apprentice in attending to his master's

*

1 Spence v. Howden, 12th July 1819, 2 Mur. 167.-29 & 10 Vict. c. 17. See above, p. 133.-+ Ibid. p. 143.- Ibid. p. 127.-§ Ibid. p. 38.- E. i. 7, 63.- Harvie v. M'Intyre, 7th March 1829.-|| See above, p. 226.5 Wright v. M'Gregor, 9th February 1826.

business, and keeping proper hours, much resembles that of a servant; but the authority of the master over his whole conduct is of a more tutorial or parental nature. The apprentice, however, cannot be called upon to perform menial or other duties unconnected with his master's profession, unless they be stipulated in the indenture.1 So a mason, who kept his apprentice constantly hewing stones, without teaching him to build, was found to have committed a breach of contract.2 The House of Lords found that a barber's apprentice who covenanted "not to absent himself from his master's business, holiday or week day, late hour or early, without leave first asked and obtained," was not bound to attend to customers on Sunday morning.3 The master's remedy where the apprentice deserts his service is noticed below (see p. 265).

The master, besides the ordinary obligations of employers to servants, engages to show and teach to his apprentice the business of his profession, in so far as he himself practises it. He thus cannot generally do his duty to his apprentice without attending to his business. His performance of this duty however will be called for merely in so far as the absolute interest of the apprentice demands it, and if he have a skilful foreman or partner, his own presence will not be required; as in the case where a wright was constantly absent from his workhouse, and engaged in smuggling transactions, but "the work in the shop was daily carried on by experienced journeymen." The master is not entitled to transfer his apprentice to another unless it be the custom of the trade to do so. To the change of residence of the master, the same rules will probably apply as in the case of servants, holding in mind the obligation to allow opportunity to the apprentice to learn the profession of his master as stipulated.

[ocr errors]

5

Enlistment. By the common law of Scotland apprentices cannot enlist. This principle is limited by the annual mutiny act. It is there provided that no master is entitled to reclaim an apprentice who has enlisted, unless the apprentice had been bound for four years by a regular indenture good at Scots law, which had been produced before a justice of peace, and indorsed by him, with the names of parties and date of transaction, within three months after the commencement of the apprenticeship, and before the enlist

Peter v. Terrol, 26th September 1818, 2 Mur. 28.—2 Dewar v. Millar, 14th November 1788, N. H. L.-3 Philips v. Innes, App. 20th February 1837, 2 S. & M'L. 465.—1 Gardner v. Smith & Wardrobe, 13th July 1775, M. 593.-5 Tait's J. P. 5,

ment. After desertion the master requires, within one calendar month, to take before a justice of peace an oath prescribed by the act, of which he must produce a certificate. No apprentice can be so redeemed who exceeds the age of twenty-one. If the apprentice have told the magistrate before whom he was enlisted that he was not an apprentice, he is guilty of fraud, becomes liable to serve at the end of his apprenticeship, and, if he do not then deliver himself up to some recruiting officer, may be tried as a deserter.2

Apprenticeship to the sea-service is regulated by the Merchant Seamen's Act. (See the ensuing Section.)

SECT. 6.-Mariners.

The hiring of mariners, and their remedies for the recovery of their wages, are regulated by the merchant seamen's act. It provides that "It shall not be lawful for any master of any ship, of whatever tonnage or description, belonging to any subject of her majesty, proceeding to parts beyond the seas, or of any British registered ship of the burden of eighty tons or upwards, employed in any of the fisheries of the United Kingdom, or in proceeding coastwise, or otherwise, from one part of the United Kingdom to another, to carry to sea any seaman as one of his crew or complement (apprentices excepted), unless the master of such ship shall have first made and entered into an agreement in writing with such seaman, specifying what wages such seaman is to be paid, the quantity of provisions he is to receive, the capacity in which he is to act or serve, and the nature of the voyage in which the ship is to be employed, so that such seaman may have some means of judging of the period for which he is likely to be engaged; and that such agreement shall be properly dated, and shall be signed by such master in the first instance, and by the seamen respectively, at the port or place where they shall be shipped, and that the signature of each of the parties thereto shall be duly attested by one witness at the least, and that the master shall cause the agreement to be read over and explained to every such seaman, in the presence of such witness, before such seaman shall execute the same; and it shall not be lawful for the master of any ship to carry to sea any seaman, being a subject of her Majesty, until he shall also have first obtained from every such seaman or other person his register ticket

19 & 10 Vict. c. 15, § 43.-2 Ibid. § 42.

« ZurückWeiter »