EMPLOYMENT OF AN ENGINEEE 31 



directly to him or to a fellow workman, discloses the particu- 

 lars for the purpose of divulging a trade secret, he shall 

 be liable to a fine not exceeding W. Sub-sect. (4) also 

 provides that if anyone, for the purpose of obtaining know- 

 ledge of or divulging a trade secret, solicits or procures a 

 person so engaged in a factory to disclose any such particulars, 

 or with that object pays or rewards any such person, or causes 

 any such person to be paid or rewarded for disclosing any such 

 particulars, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding W. 



22. Rights of an engineer under Workmen's Compensation 

 Act, 1906. In addition to the remedies which a central station 

 engineer may have against his employer under the agreement 

 between them, he may also enjoy certain statutory rights. 

 Thus he may be entitled to compensation under the Work- 

 men's Compensation Act, 1906, if his salary does not exceed 

 250 a year. In estimating salary for this purpose, board and 

 allowances must be taken into account. For further informa- 

 tion with regard to this Act, the reader is referred to the 

 numerous legal treatises on the subject. 



23. Rights of a resident engineer as a tenant. The tenure 

 of an engineer who occupies premises of the employer for the 

 more easy performance of his duties depends upon the terms 

 of the contract of such service. But if there is no special pro- 

 vision on this head, the law provides that he has thereby 

 conferred upon him no estate in the premises, and may be 

 turned out at the pleasure of the employer (White v. Bayley, 

 1861, 10 C. B. N. S. 227). In other words he is only a tenant 

 at will. He has no right to insist on a notice to quit, as he 

 would have if he were a tenant in the ordinary sense. 



24. Employment of a marine engineer. Where a marine 

 engineer is employed to serve on a particular ship, it seems 

 that he is entitled to insist that he shall be employed on 

 that ship and no other. Where a seaman was employed 

 to undertake certain specified voyages on a particular ship, it 

 was held to be a breach of contract to sell the ship before those 

 voyages were completed, without procuring employment for 

 him on that particular vessel. The mere acceptance by him 

 of money on account of wages on another vessel which was to 

 sail for a different voyage, and on board which the plaintiff 



