EMPLOYMENT OF AN ENGINEER 23 



having wilfully violated the contract according to which he 

 was hired, claim the sum to which his wages would have 

 amounted had he kept his contract, merely deducting there- 

 from one month's wages. 



This, at first sight, may appear rather harsh to some ; but 

 it is believed to be not only the law, but far more consistent 

 with common sense than to allow a man, at one and the 

 same moment, to break a contract and claim a benefit under 

 it, especially when, upon merely giving notice to his master, 

 and paying (or agreeing to allow his master to deduct the 

 amount due to him) a month's wages, he could leave at any 

 time ; and the practical effect of adhering to the strict 

 letter of the law is merely to compel the servant to give 

 his master notice when he wants to leave, which can be but 

 little trouble to him, and will in most cases save the master 

 a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience and trouble, and 

 sometimes loss. 



12. Dismissal without notice. It is difficult to lay down 

 any broad rule as to the causes which will justify summary 

 dismissal without notice, or salary in lieu of notice. It has 

 been asserted that to justify a master in dismissing a yearly 

 servant before the expiration of the year there must be on 

 the part of the servant either moral misconduct or, otherwise, 

 wilful disobedience or habitual neglect (Callo v. Brouncker, 

 1831, 4 C. & P. 518). Numerous instances might be 

 quoted, but in the majority of cases the point is raised as a 

 simple issue of fact for a jury. To take an illustration. In 

 one instance a man was engaged as a clerk under a contract 

 of hiring for two years, to conduct the business of a shipping 

 agent at Southampton. In the course of such employment it 

 was the duty of the clerk to pay freight, dock dues, etc., to 

 meet which the employer from time to time forwarded the 

 necessary funds. The clerk wrote to his employer for 140, 

 enclosing an account of the purpose for which it was required, 

 one of them being the payment of 30 for salary due to him- 

 self. Ten days afterwards the employer forwarded a cheque 

 for 100, with a letter, directing him to apply the money for 

 business purposes. The clerk having appropriated 30 of the 

 money in satisfaction of his salary, he was discharged. In an 

 action for wrongful dismissal, the employer justified his con- 

 duct, saying that the plaintiff had wrongfully and improperly 



