a person agrees not to carry on his trade or business within the prescribed limits. An agreement by a clerk or servant that, so long as he is in a particular employment, he will not endeavour to do business on his own account with the customers of his master or employer, wherever they may reside, will be valid. If an agreement not to carry on business within a certain distance, or not to solicit business from the customers of a master or employer, be broken, the master or employer may either bring an action in a court of law for the breach of the contract, or he may apply to a court of equity for an injunction to restrain the other party from doing the act complained of. It must be observed that the equitable jurisdiction of the county courts does not extend to the granting of an injunction in a case of this kind. CHAPTER III. OF THE DUTIES OF THE SERVANT TO THE MASTER. Duty to enter Service, and serve stipulated time.-What Duties bound to perform.-Obedience.-Diligence.-Care of Master's Property. —Liability of Servants to Master for Negligence, or for injury to a third person.-Duty of Servant to account to Master.-Payments by Servants to Master.-Servants committing any breach of their contracts with their employers, may be sued for damages, or proceeded against under Masters and Servants Act. THE first duty of a person who has engaged himself to another by a valid contract is of course to enter upon his term of service or employment at the stipulated time; and if he do not the master or employer may bring an action against him either in a superior or a county court. Having entered the service or employment, his next duty is to serve for the period prescribed by the contract, or until the expiration of a notice lawfully given; and if he do not do this, then also, unless he has a legal justification for his conduct, he will be liable to an action. While in the service or employment he will, of course, be bound not only to the performance of any special duties he may have undertaken, but also to those which are attached by usage and custom to his occupation. A person who is employed in one capacity is of course not liable to be called upon to serve in another; and if he is required to do so, he may lawfully refuse without rendering himself liable to dismissal. Thus, a footman or a nursemaid cannot be required to act as cook, nor can a cook be called upon to attend to the children or wait at table. And in like manner, a man engaged as a bricklayer cannot be required to act as a hodman. In all these cases, if any question arises as to whether anything which a servant is called upon to do is or is not within the scope of his engagement or his duties, the decision will (in the absence of any express contract) depend upon what is the custom of the particular trade or occupation. He must do what is customary, he cannot be compelled to do more. In addition to these duties, there are, however, some which are implied by law from the relation of master and servant, and are binding upon all "servants," using that word in the larger and general sense we attributed to it at the outset of this work. Thus, every servant must obey all his master's lawful commands,* and is bound to be honest * But, although a servant impliedly undertakes to obey the just and reasonable commands of his master, and to be careful, diligent, and industrious in the performance of his work, he is not bound to fulfil the unjust and unreasonable commands of a harsh taskmaster, nor (as we have already said) to perform work not fairly coming within the scope of his employment. Again, unless he knowingly engages in a hazardous occupation, he is not bound to risk his safety in the service of his master, and may, if he thinks fit, decline any service in which he reasonably apprehends injury to himself. Of course, whether his apprehensions were or were not reasonable would be a question for the court, in case the master discharged him, and he brought an action for wrongful dismissal. It is the duty of ever eat a me te mi proper care of his master's przgery entrusted to him, and if in discharging is ny he was vid so more than necessary Trience a person wrong? removing it without legal pressa, ie will be justified in doing so.* If the property of the master is lost or injured through the negligence of the servant, the latter will be late to an action, which may be brought, according to cumstances, in a superior or county court. He is not, however, liable for mere accidents. Thus, there can be no doubt that a domestic servant may be required to make compensation for breakages which occur through his or her negligence. But it is seldom worth the while of the master to insist upon a right which he can, in general, only vindicate by bringing an action. If, indeed, he has taken the precaution to make an agreement with the servant that the latter shall consent to a fair deduction from wages on account of breakages, then he may stop such a sum as he deems right. If, however, the servant did not admit the alleged negligence, or disputed the assessment of damages, * A servant may also take into custody any person who steals or feloniously receives his master's property, and may, further, justify an assault committed in defence of his master's person. but, on the contrary, brought an action for the wages withheld, the master would be compelled to justify his conduct on both points to the satisfaction of a judge or jury. In very few cases can it be worth his while to incur the risk and annoyance of such a proceeding. In the absence of such an agreement as we have mentioned, it must be clearly understood that a master cannot take the law into his own hands, and make a deduction from the servant's wages. The compensation which the servant is bound to make is, in that case, in the nature of damages, and is not a debt; and that being so, in accordance with wellestablished legal principles, it is not the subject of a set-off, but must be recovered in an action. No doubt the master may refuse to pay the wages, take the risk of the servant suing him for them, and then if an action is brought, bring a cross action for the damages. By taking the latter step immediately he is served with a county-court summons on behalf of his servant, he would easily secure the two actions being brought on together. In that case the servant would recover the wages which were due, and the master would recover the damages to which he was entitled. Execution could, however, only be taken out by that party who obtained judgment for the larger sum, and for so much only as should remain after deducting the smaller sum. In that way, no doubt, the master might eventually set off the damages against the wages; but when the costs |