Giving a Servant a Character.
The giving a Character to a Servant is one of the most ordinary communications which a member of society is called on to make; and, as the learned Mr. Starkie observes, is a duty of great importance to the interests of the public; and in respect of that duty a person offends grievously against the interests of the community in giving a good character where it is not deserved, or against justice and humanity in either injuriously refusing to give a character, or in designedly misrepresenting “one to the detriment of the individual.”
The following Rules are suggested for the consideration of masters and mistresses not acquainted with the law in such cases:
Rule 1. No magistrate has any jurisdiction touching the character of a domestic servant; and the common threat of a master or mistress being summoned for not giving a character is absurd.
Rule 2. It has been clearly decided that a character honestly and bonâ fide given by a master or mistress to any person making the usual inquiry, is a privileged communication; and unless inconsistent with truth, or actual malice can be proved by evidence, no damages can be sustained. But it must be carefully borne in mind that, however truly or honestly the character may be given, an action at law can be brought against the master or mistress, and the ladies of the family put to the anxiety of appearing in court, as well as the lady to whom the character was given. And, although the servant may be immediately defeated, and the case stopped by the judge, you will find yourself some fifty or sixty pounds out of pocket by your victory.
Rule 3. The only safe course, when a master or mistress cannot in sincerity and truth recommend a servant, is to decline answering any questions on the subject, and the following form of written answer may prove useful: “Mrs. A. presents her compliments to Mrs. B., and in reply to her note requesting the character of Ann C——, trusts she will kindly excuse Mrs. A. declining to answer any questions on the subject.” Address and date. A copy should be kept.
In the case of Carrol v. Bird, the courts of law have decided that neither master nor mistress is bound to give a character, and that no action will lie against them for refusing. The cases also of Taylor v. Hawkins are well worthy of notice. It must, however, be repeated, that both justice and humanity claim from a master and mistress their kindest care and consideration for the character of their servants, more particularly female servants; but it is confidently believed that if the above rules were better known and more generally acted on, all good and honest servants would be gainers.—Times, April 19, 1860.
It may be useful to mention here that in the Court of Exchequer, a cook, formerly in the service of Col. Sibthorp, M.P., brought an action against him for an alleged libel in a letter to a lady who had applied to him for the character of the cook, but which was not satisfactory to the lady. It was submitted the Colonel’s letter being proved a privileged communication, the action could not be maintained without proof of express malice on the part of the defendant, of which there was not the slightest evidence; the judge concurred in this view, and the plaintiff was accordingly nonsuited.
Deodands.
Within memory, when an accident occurred, it was customary to inflict a kind of fine or penalty thus: supposing a boy was run over by a vehicle, the verdict was recorded “Accidental death, with a deodand of one shilling upon the cart.” In the Liber Albus (27 Henry III.), we read that a man fell from a boat into the Thames, and was drowned; no one was held in suspicion as to the same; the judgment was “Misadventure,” and the value of the boat, 4s. 7d., was exacted as a deodand, payable to the king. [See Things not generally known, First Series, p. 173.] The deodandum (Deo dandum, given to God) of our jurisprudence may be reckoned among the mysterious things of history. The deodand is philanthropic, it is religious, and it is so far clerical, that its value, when levied, was handed over to the clergy. Fleta, a commentator on English law, temp. Edward I., says that the deodand is to be sold, and the price distributed to the poor, for the soul of the king, his ancestors, and all faithful people departed this life. Yet it was not ecclesiastical: it cannot be recovered by suit in the courts of canon law, but only in the courts of the king’s coroner, either for counties, or for all England. This ancient custom was abolished by act 9th and 10th Vict., cap. 62, which enacts that subsequent to September 1st, 1846, there shall be no forfeiture of chattels in respect of homicide.