compelled to go on employing a man who, having
represented himself to be competent, turns
out to be incompetent. An engineer is retained
by a railway company to drive an express train
for a year, and is found to be utterly unskilful
or incompetent to drive or regulate the locomotive:
are the railway company still bound, under
pain of an action, to entrust the lives of thousands,
to his dangerous and demonstrated incapacity?
A clerk is retained for a year to keep a
merchant's books, and it turns out that he is
ignorant not only of book-keeping but of arithmetic:
is the merchant bound to continue him in
his employment? Misconduct in a servant is,
according to every day's experience, a justification
of a discharge. The failure to afford the
requisite skill expressedly or impliedly promised,
is a breach of legal duty, and, therefore,
misconduct."

"It appears to us," added Mr. Justice Willes,
in his judgment, "that there is no material
difference between a servant who will not, and
a servant who can not, perform the duties for
which he was hired."

To go back to the responsibility of Mr. Blank
for the acts of his servants. "If a servant,"
said Lord Cranworth, not very long ago, in the
House of Lords, "driving his master's carriage
along the highway, carelessly runs over a
bystander," another reason why Mr. Blank should
be careful in the selection of his coachman,
"or if a gamekeeper employed to kill
game carelessly fire at a hare so as to shoot a
person passing on the ground, or if a workman
employed by a builder in building a house
negligently throw a brick or stone from the
scaffold and so hurt a passer-by, the person
injured has a right to treat the wrongful act as
the act of the master."

So, Mr. Blank is responsible for damage
caused by his servant's carelessness whilst that
servant is occupied in doing his business.

If Leggings, the keeper, however, choose to
attend a pigeon-shooting for his own private
amusement, and be so unfortunate as to put an
ounce and a half of shot through a neighbouring
conservatory, Mr. Blank will not be responsible
for that act of his servant. Moreover, should
Leggings (whom we will assume to be an
excellent keeper and a crack shot) have the
misfortune to damage the under-keeper whilst
both are engaged in killing their master's
rabbits, no legal penalties will attach to Mr.
Blank, although he is the master: unless it can
be shown that Leggings is incompetent to fulfil
the duties of a gamekeeper, and is not by any
means a crack shot.

The responsibility of a master, in fact, does
not extend to any damage which one servant may
receive from another while both are engaged in a
common employment: provided the master take
proper precaution to employ servants who
understand their work.

Let us take a case recently decided in the
House of Lords, and from which we have already
quoted.

In that instance, a miner was killed, through
the carelessness of the engine-man, who
neglected to stop the engine when the cage, in
which the miner was seated, had reached the
mouth of the pit. The relatives of the unfortunate
man brought an action against the owners
of the colliery, but (the question having been
referred to the highest tribunal) it was held that
they were not liable. Among other reasons
adduced, Lord Cranworth said: "When the
workman contracts to do work of any particular
sort, he knows, or ought to know, to what risks
he is exposing himself; he knows, if such be
the nature of the risk, that want of care on
the part of a fellow-workman may be injurious
or fatal to him—that against such want of
care his employer cannot by any means protect
him."

Let us try a change of subject: say, "shopping."
The legal peculiarities attached to this
operation are not numerous, but the few which
strike us as of consequence shall be faithfully
stated.

If a person purchase goods of a greater value
than ten pounds, the law requires the bargain
to be ratified by a note in writing, signed
by the purchaser: "except," as the books have
it, "the buyer shall accept part of the goods
sold, and actually receive the same, or give
something in earnest to bind the bargain, or in
part payment."

As an illustration: Mr. Blank may purchase
several articles at one time, which, though
individually of less value than ten pounds, amount,
in the whole, to more than that sum, may take
them home with him, may talk the matter over
with Mrs. B, may repent of his bargain, and
return the goods to the disappointed shopkeeper,
if there have been no written ratification of the
transaction.

Thus, a man bought various articles at a linen-
draper's, we find from the reports, each of less
value than ten pounds, but amounting, in the
whole, to seventy pounds. Some of the articles
were measured in his presence, others marked by
him with a pencil, and assistance rendered by
him in cutting other parts of the goods
purchased from larger pieces. The whole seventy
pounds' worth of haberdashery having been sent
to his house, he discovered that the shopkeeper
would not allow him more than five per cent
discount for cash, and, upon this, returned the
whole of them. The courts decided that he was
quite justified in so doing, there having been no
legal acceptance.

Moreover, if any one of a number of articles
purchased by Mr. Blank from a tradesman should
prove to be of a different character from that
promised by the shopkeeper, he may return the
whole: always provided, however, that he do so
within a reasonable time.

A very exorbitant individual once upon a
time bought a chandelier, kept it for six months,
and then returned it, saying that it was too
small for his room; but the courts were not
going to sanction so unreasonable a proceeding
as that, and requested the gentleman to make
the best of his bargain.