THE LEGAL STATUS OF SERVANT-GIRLS. 81 1 



Only one instance of robbery Lad been charged or proved, but ic 

 was held, nevertheless, that the answer to the brother was privi- 

 leged.* 



It seems, too, that it is within the scoj)e of privileged communica- 

 tions to honestly protect one's interest by informing servants of the 

 dishonesty of a fellow-servant. A man, having dismissed his servant, 

 afterward remarked to two other servants : " I discharged that man 

 for robbing me ; he is a thief, and if ever you speak to him again or 

 have anything to do with him I shall consider you as bad as him, and 

 shall discharge you." This was held on a subsequent trial to be a privi- 

 leged communication. 



Let us now look at another right. Servants have well-defined 

 rights in regard to wages. If they perform their part of the contract, 

 they are entitled to a performance on the part of the party of the first 

 part, to wit, the party hiring. Just what the servant has to do has 

 been succinctly stated by Mr. Story : "A servant," says he, "is bound 

 to obey all the just and reasonable commands of his master, to be care- 

 ful and faithful as to all property committed to his charge, to do with 

 diligence and care his proper and appointed work, and to behave with 

 decency and in a manner consistent with his station as servant. . . . 

 But the command must be just and reasonable, and within the fair 

 scope of his employment." f 



The right to the wages is not affected by the fact that there is 

 nothing for her to do, if she is on hand and holds herself ready to 

 serve. \ The hiring being an accomplished fact, and the time of ser- 

 vice begun, the right to wages exists. If there is nothing to do, so 

 much the luckier for the servant. As a matter of fact, however, it 

 may be safely said that such an easy state of affairs seldom occurs in 

 the experience of most domestics. 



The right to wages is unaffected also by damage done by the ser- 

 vant. For instance, if she injure articles or lose them in the course of the 

 service, the party hiring can not without a specific agreement to such 

 effect, deduct from the servant's wages their value, but must bring her 

 cross-action against the servant for compensation.* So that, if a lady 

 deducts for some such cause a portion of her cook's wages, the cook 

 would have a perfect right to sue for the sum deducted. Inasmuch, 

 however, as the party hiring can bring a cross-action, or, as in New 

 York practice, set up a counter-claim in the cook's action, for the lost 

 articles, the cook's net recovery would be nil. In other words, the 

 legal and illegal ways of settling for the damaged or lost articles end 

 in similar results. "It is six of one and half -a dozen of the other." 

 As a matter of practice and advisability, the illegal method of deduc- 

 tion, although it overrides the servant's rights, is better for her, as it 

 saves her the expense of a lawsuit merely for a principle. The wise 



* 16 Q. B., 322. f 2 Story on Contr., 1,304. \ 32 Barb., 564. 



* 2 Story on Contr., 1,297. 



