+ ~ -
Please report pronunciation problems here. Select and sample other voices. Options Pause Play
Report an Error


She determines upon a friendly visit to Mrs.
Smith, and in that lady's own house to her thus
loquitur: "Then you don't consider her (they
were discussing the cook) honest?" Mrs.
Smith, loq.: " Honest? Certainly not. Indeed,
I would call it very dishonest."

Conversation reported to Gardiner, the cook,
who commences an action at law against Mrs.


Gardiner v. Smith.


Subsequent letter from Mrs. Smith to Mrs.
M., in which the latter reads, "You will
remember I imputed no actual dishonesty to
Gardiner, for of that I had no actual knowledge."

Held by court that conversation was privileged;
consequent defeat of the cook.

A perusal of the police reports will have
doubtless shown to most of our readers that
to personate a master or mistress, and to
furnish a servant with a forged character, are
offences which render the person committing
them liable to a penalty of twenty pounds, or,
failing the payment of that sum, to imprisonment
for not less than one or more than three
months, with hard labour.

Mr. Blank (to return to that gentleman) is
liable for such acts of his servant as are
committed at his express or implied command.
Mr. Justice Blackstone has it: " What
a servant is permitted to do in the usual course
of his business is equivalent to a general com-
mand. If I pay money to a banker's servant,
the banker is liable for it: if I pay it to a
clergyman's or physician's servant, whose usual
business is not to receive money for his master,
and he embezzles it, I must pay it over again."

Mr. Blank is no less responsible for goods
bought by his servant of a tradesman, should
the course of dealing between Mr. Blank
and the tradesman be such as to lead to the
supposition that the servant is at liberty to
pledge his master's credit. On this point it
behoves the tradesman to be cautious. A
gentleman, for instance, we find from a reported
case, was in the habit of obtaining a certain
quantity of porter annually for his family. A
bibulous maid-servant in the establishment,
thinking the supply small, ordered an extra
quantity to be brought secretly, and for which
the master refused to pay. Lord Eldon, before
whom the question as to who should pay for the
increased supply was brought for trial, decided
that the master was not liable.

Again: should Mr. Blank give his servant
money to purchase goods, and the servant
obtain them on credit, it has been held that he is
not liable. If he authorises the servant to
purchase the goods, however, on credit, and
afterwards gives the money to his servant for the
purpose of paying for them, but which money
the servant embezzles, the case is different.

It appears, too, that to be in a position to
claim any exemption whatever, Mr. Blank must
pursue some definite course of dealing with his
tradesmen. For, as Mr. Justice Blackstone
says, "If I send my servant sometimes upon
trust and sometimes with ready money, I am
answerable for all he takes up: for the tradesman
cannot possibly distinguish when he comes
by my orders and when he comes upon his own

A lady having ordered her tailor to supply
her coachman with two suits of livery in each
year, the coachman thought he would prefer
having one suit of livery, and one suit of genteel
plain clothes. The tailor, in compliance with the
coachman's request, made the two suits accordingly;
but the matter coming to the ears of the
mistress, she refused to pay for the plain suit.
The court held that she was quite justified in so
doing. " The practice of servants exchanging
their liveries for plain clothes," said Lord Abinger,
in giving judgment, " is a species of fraud
upon the master, and it was the duty of the
plaintiff (the tailor) to communicate the
circumstance to the defendant (the lady) when the
coachman proposed to make the exchange; for
if a master thinks it right that his servant should
have two suits of livery in the year, it is the
duty of the servant to wear such livery."

In a case where a master agreed with his
servant for so much wage and a suit of
clothes, it was held that the servant had no
property in the clothes until he had served a
year. Mr. Blank need not, therefore, hesitate
to discharge Jeames from any fear of losing the
livery, even though he may have recently
clothed him in a suit of resplendent plush.

We all know that housemaids and cooks
entertain a ridiculous partiality for matrimony.
It may be satisfactory to Mrs. Blank to know
that, supposing this passion should attack either
of her domestics above mentioned, they would
still be obliged to continue, until proper notice
had been given, in her service. " If a woman
who is a servant," says the old law-book to
which we have before referred, " marry, yet she
must serve out her time, and her husband cannot
take her out of her master's service."

Mr. Blank, the law rules, is not, in the absence
of custom, liable for the expenses incurred by his
servant in going to or returning from the place
of hiring.

The Sixth Journey of
Will appear in No. 50.

Early in April, price 5s. 6d., bound in cloth, will be
Including Nos. 27 to 50, and the Christmas Double