644 LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 



to buy, and was in so buying defrauding her principal, and obtaining 

 goods for herself, provided this was or had been the custom about the 

 employer's place. But if a man is employed in farm work, and is not 

 connected with the household work, and never been permitted by the 

 farmer to make any purchases, he could not bind the farmer by going to 

 the store and buying goods simply because he was a laborer and pretend- 

 ing to have authority. If he has the authority and has purchased goods 

 at' a certain place, the employer will be bound by his acts, unless he 

 notifies the parties from whom he had formerly purchased that he will be 

 no longer responsible. But the laborer who so purchased without the 

 consent or directions of his employer is criminally liable. 



Liability of Employer for Injury Committed by his Employee. 

 Where the employee is working within the scope of his employment, even 

 though the farmer does not authorize, or even know, a laborer's act, he 

 will be held responsible for any injury accruing through the negligence, 

 fraud, deceit, or even willful misconduct of the laborer. 



Discharging for Cause. Before the employer can discharge his 

 laborer, there must be a sufficient cause to discharge the employer from 

 liability for future wages, or justify the dismissal ; there must be, on the 

 part of the laborer, either willful disobedience of the lawful orders, or 

 immoral conduct, or habitual negligence. To illustrate an instance of 

 the first : If, where the farmer ordered the laborer to go with his team 

 a long distance just as dinner was ready, and he refused to go until after 

 he had had his dinner. But in most cases, where the misconduct is 

 slight and is the first offense, there is a strong tendency to excuse the 

 laborer. Still, willful disobedience of the lawful command, as well as 

 insulting language used by the laborer, is generally considered good 

 ground for discharge. If the laborer is immoral, or habitually drunk, or 

 embezzles, or commits fraudulent acts toward his employer, his dismissal 

 would be justifiable. Unwarranted absence, or neglect in discharging his 

 duties, thereby causing loss or injury to his employer, would justify the 

 same course, even though the laborer did not intend to cause damage. 



Dismissing Laborers. If the master should, without just cause, turn 

 a servant under a monthly contract away without notice, the latter would 

 be able to recover a month' s wages beyond the arrears. 



Liability of the Laborer to the Farmer for Misconduct. If the 

 laborer by negligence, carelessness, or misconduct in doing the work, or 

 executing orders, causes loss to the employer, or if a third person has re- 

 covered damages from the employer because of the acts of the employee, 

 the employee will be liable to the farmer and he must also pay for prop- 

 erty willfully broken or damaged. 



Termination of Services. If the service is dissolved at the expira- 

 tion of the term for which the person is hired, either by mutual consent, 

 by the death of either party, or by the employed being unable to per- 

 form his duty on account of some permanent disability, the farmer must 



