legal rights of the parties. Where is a decision,
"he continued, " founded upon mere moral
obligation, to stop? "What degree of sickness,
what measure of relationship is sufficient? It
is the safest way, therefore," concluded the
learned baron, " to adhere to the legal obligation
arising out of the contract between the parties.
There may, undoubtedly, be cases justifying a
wilful disobedience of such an order, as when
the servant apprehends danger to her life, or
violence to her person from the master, or where
from an infectious disorder raging in the house,
she must go out for the preservation of her health;
but the general rule is obedience, and wilful
disobedience is a sufficient ground of dismissal."

This is rather strong language, but we may
mention that another case, not alluded to by
the learned baron, in which a servant may absent
himself without permission from his master,
is whilst looking out for another situation, or
going to a public hiring to be hired.

So far dismissal. Let us parenthetically
address one word on domestic matters, particularly
to Mrs. Blank. Possibly that lady, in common
with most householders, possesses a cat. We
will suppose that the naturally destructive
properties of that animal have reached a very
aggravating height indeed; that, not content
with a reasonable demolition of "willow pattern,"
the Sèvres china and the " best service" have
not been exempt from the ravages of this
domestic Moloch. What is the unwarrantable
and unreasonable conclusion to which Mrs. B.
is driven by this unpleasant illustration of natural
history? First, that the cat and the housemaid
are synonymous; and second, that it is
her (Mrs. B.'s) legitimate right to inform the
latter of her intention to deduct the value of the
damaged crockery from her wages. Now, such
a proceeding is illegal; in the absence of any
express agreement to the contrary, Mrs. Blank
must pay the delinquent housemaid her full
wages, and recover the value of her demolished
Sèvres by an action at law if she can.
Lord Ellenborough, in a case where a servant
brought an action against her master for wages,
and this master wished to place the articles
broken by the servant as a " set off," ruled that
such a proceeding could not be allowed, and was
not in accordance with the law.

As to the matter of medical attendance upon
a servant, we may mention that a master is not
bound to provide a doctor for a sick domestic.
A reported case informs us that a maid-servant,
who had met with an accident, called in a medical
man without mentioning the matter to the
master or mistress. The doctor having sent in
his account to the master, was refused payment,
and (an action at law being the result) it
was held that the master was not liable.

Though exempt from payment of a doctor's
bill, however, our illustrative Mr. Blank
cannot turn away his servant on account of
illness. " If a servant, retained for a year,"
says an old law-book, which has been quoted
before- the judges without disapprobation,"
happen within the term of his service to fall sick
or be hurt, or disabled by the act of God, or in
doing his master's business, yet the master must
not, therefore, put such servant away, nor abate
any part of his wages for such time." ln speaking
of the " characters" of servants—for attention
must next be directed to that branch of our
subject—we can state that a master is not
legally bound to give a character to his servant
at all. In the words of Lord Kenyon, "it may
be a duty which the master's feelings prompt
him to perform, but there is no law to enforce
it." If he do give a character, however, he
must take care that it be bona fide, otherwise
he may become liable to the new master of the
servant, and to the servant himself: to the one,
for introducing an unfit person into his house;
to the other, for taking away his livelihood.

A case is reported in which a master knowingly
gave a false character to a servant. The
servant having subsequently robbed his new
master, was hanged, and the person who gave
the false character was held liable to the master
in an action for damages.

Happily for the lawyers, there is a "fine
point" to be discovered in so simple a matter as
a servant's character. It is this: if a master
with malice give a false character to a servant,
who is thus prevented from obtaining, or
compelled to resign, a situation, the master becomes
liable to the servant. If the character is given
bona fide and without malice, it then is treated
as a " privileged communication," upon which
no action can be brought.

Moreover, should a master subsequently
discover that the character which he had given of
a servant late in his service was not deserved,
it would be his duty to inform the new master
of his discovery, and this would be a privileged
communication.

The Reports furnishing us with a little domestic
drama upon this point, we will quote it:

Dramatis personae
Mr. & Mrs. S. (say Smith).
Mrs. M. (say Merrylegs).
Servants, &c.
Gardiner, cook to Mr.&Mrs.
S., and afterwards servant
to Mrs. Merrylegs.

ACT I.

Cook being dissatisfied with her situation
under Mr. and Mrs. Smith, hires herself to Mrs.
Merrylegs. Mrs. M. requests a character. Mr.
Smith (rashly, in the absence of Mrs. Smith, who
is sick) furnishes a flourishing catalogue of the
cook's qualifications, moral and culinary.

ACT II.

Mrs. Smith, convalescent, has occasion to write
to Mrs. Merrylegs for the character of another
servant, and in the course of her epistle says:
"I wish to know whether your servant is
economical, and manages well, and obeys her
orders, not allowing the other servants to eat
out of meal times, or help themselves. I mention
this particularly, having discovered that I
have been much imposed on in this way a short
time ago."

Mrs. Merrylegs smells a rat.