•2 Of) MOXTRLY SERVAXTS. 



convictetl in this way, ■wc sliould have to look into the other question, 

 as to whetlier he had been guilty of misconduct ; but that is unnecessary, 

 as we think he was not a servant in husbandry within the act of parlia- 

 ment" {Daries appt. v. Baron BcrwkJc resp.). 



Bond Jide helief of servant tliat he may quit his ])lace. — Although if a 

 servant leaves his employment, or refuses to perform his own contract 

 under a hond fide belief that he has a right to do so, he cannot be con- 

 victed under the statute ; yet to entitle the servant to judgment on that 

 ground on a case stated for the opinion of the Court, the facts must 

 reasonably show that tiie desertion or neglect complained of was in 

 pursuance of that supposed right, and it is not sufficient that it was 

 merely possible that he acted under it [Willett appt, v. Boote resp.). 



Contracts of service need not he for any specified time to give magistrates 

 jurisdiction. — In order to give justices jurisdiction to hear a complaint 

 as to the non-payment of wages, under the 20 Geo. II. c. 19, s. 1, it is 

 only necessary that the relation of master and servant should exist 

 between the parties, and the contract of service need not le for any sjMcific 

 time (Alice Taylor appt. v. Carr and Porter resps.). 



Recovering a months ivages. — A menial servant, entitled under the 

 hiring to a month's warning or a month's wages, cannot recover a 

 month's wages for having been improperly dismissed without a month's 

 warning on the common indehitatus count for work or labour, but must 

 declare specially. And ^^er Curiam : " The month's wages are to be 

 paid, not for the bygone services, but for the improper dismissal of the 

 servant. Eardtey v. Price (2 N. R. 333) broke in upon the rules of 

 law, perhaps in order to do what happened to be justice in that particular 

 case. Archard v. Hornor (3 C. & P. 349), which was afterwards con- 

 firmed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Smith v. Eayward (7 Ad. & E. 

 544), and also by this court, governs this case. It is not broken in 

 upon by Smith v. Kingsford (3 Scott, 279), which was decided on the 

 ground that there was no dissolution of the contract of hiring. The 

 contract in the present case is that the service is for the year, but the 

 master is at liberty to dismiss the servant by giving her a month's 

 wages or warning." And per Alderson B. : " When we say that the 

 servant is to have a month's warning or a month's wages, it is meant 

 that the payment to be made for the dismissal without warning is to be 

 by way of composition, and that the amount is to be equal to a month's 

 wages " {Fewings v. Tisdal, 1 Exch. 295). 



Gardener only entitled to a month's ivages. — A gardener with £100 a 

 year and house, and two apprentices at £15 a year, is still only a menial 

 servant, and entitled, even after four years' service, to only a month's 

 warning. And per Abingcr O.B., though he did not live in the house, 



