Contract-Employment-Domestic servant-Customary ~Premature termIna-

tion by servant-Conduct of employer-Whether. servant entUled to ,T6-
muneration pro rata

Labour=Domestic servant-Premature termination of contract by servant-Con-
duct of employer-Whether seroant entitle~ to remuneration pro rata              

The customary term of' employment of a domestic servant is one
month, arid if the servant leaves his employmeJlt without sufficient cause
after serving for a period less than a month, he is not entitled t~ any
remuneration in respect of, the period served.

Appeal

July 18, 1920. Dun C.J.:
must be allowed.

We are all agreed that· this' appC!al .

·Court: Dun c.j., Osborne J. and Davidson AIJ.

When' a master engages a servant; the customary period of em-
ployment is a month, and neither the master nor the servant is en-
titled to put an end to the contract before: the month is up without
sufficient reason.

If the servant steals from the master, or is arrested by the police
and so prevented from performing his duties, the master may dis-
charge him, and there are no doubt many other instances of which
one could think.

On the other hand the servant may leave, if the master treats
- him badly, so that all these cases tum on their own facts, and the
question is: had the master or servant good reason to put an end to
the contract of employment between them?

In this case the respondent had been in the appellant's service
9 days when there happened the incident described in the court
below;' the respondent then left the appellant's service, with or with-
out claiming his wages, and subsequently raised this action to recover
them.

The allegation that the appellant attempted and threatened to
strike the respondent (denied by the appellant and by the only other
person who was present), and the abusive language alleged by the
respondent to have been used by the appellant to the respondent,
does not justify the respondent in breaking his contract; and, there-
fore, he is not entitled to receive his wages for the 9 days he was
in the appellant's service.

Davidson All.: I agree with the Chief Justice's judgment but
should like to add that, in my view, no pay becomes due to the
servant until he has completed' the monthly period of service. Taking
the example given by the Chief Justice-if a servant is arrested by
the Police on the 15th of the month, and so cannot complete' his
contract, he is not entitled to, anythin

g in respect ~f the 15 days in
which he did serve. 'A fortiori where the servant .leaves of his own
accord, unless the master has treated him in such a' way as to amount
to breach of the contract, the, servant cannot recover payment for

           the portion of the month that he has served.                                           

1 No clear reference to the details of this incident could be traced, but
apparently the reference is to a dispute in the course of which some wrong
, language' was used and as a result of which the respondent left the service of'
the appellant