^:00 GEXEKAL HIRING OF AGraCCLTUEAL LABOURER. 



If a i/enrJy servant irro)i(/fi/I!// r/uif, or le dismissed Inj his master, le- 

 fore the year expires, for such miscouduct as will justify the dismissal, 

 the servant is not entitled to any wages for the time during which he 

 served ('ranter v. Euhinson). The general rule is, that // a master 

 hire a servant without mentioning the time, that is a general hiring, 

 and in point of law a hiring for one whole year ; and a stipulation that 

 there is to be an advance of so much per annum, till the wages reach 

 a certain amount, does not make it the less a contract for a year. In 

 the case of domestic servants, the rule is well established that the 

 contract may be determined by a month's notice or a month's wages, 

 but that depends upon custom. Where no such custom is proved, the 

 contract must be taken to be one for a year {Fmvcett v. Cash). 



A general hiring in the case of an agricultural labourer means, in 



law, a hiring for a year ; and therefore the plaintiff in Lit teg v. El win 



failed on his first count, which alleged a special contract of hiring, 



determinable at any time by reasonable notice on either side, and was 



only supported by proof of a general hiring as to time. And he could 



not recover for the time of his actual service on the indehitatus count, 



as he was bound to give a whole year's service before earning any 



wages, and he broke his contract by leaving that service before the 



year's end. In this case nothing was said as to notice of determining 



the engagement. The defendant, a farmer, hired the plaintiff as a 



waggoner for ten guineas a-year, payable at its expiration. During 



the harvest, he worked in the field generally, and the Court thought 



it must be taken as part of his contract that he should do so. At 



that time of the year the practice was to work till eight o'clock in the 



evening ; but he refused to work to that hour, not as being an 



unreasonable hour, or as not being within the terms of his contract, 



but because strong beer of good quality was not allowed to him, 



according to a custom which he alleged to exist ; the beer supplied 



being, as he contended, very bad, and not so good as water. Coleridge 



J. said : " If the discharge was not justifiable, then the plaintiff' was 



at liberty to treat that discharge as a rescinding of the contract by 



the defendant, and to adopt that rescinding, and sue for wages pro 



rata up to the time of the unjustifiable discharge, and so to retain 



his verdict on the indebitatus count. We do not think it necessary to 



go through the authorities which establish this view of the law ; they 



will be found collected in Mr. Smith's leading cases in the notes to 



Cutter v. Povell, vol. ii. ca. 1. The discharge in this case was not 



directly by the master, the defendant, but by a magistrate, on the 



statute 4 Geo. IV. c. M, on the complaint of the master. But we 



are of opuiion that it is sufficiently the act of the defendant to entitle 



