041-NLR-NLR-V-10-NORTHWAY-v.-VAN-CUYLENBERG.pdf
( 201 )
Present: Mr. Justice Middleton.
NORTHWAY v. VAN CUYLENBERG.
P. G.t Kandy, 9,317.
Quitting service toithcut notice—Reasonable cause—Assault and abuse bymistress—Ordinance No. 16 of 1905, s. 2.
Where in a prosecution,* under section 2 of Ordinance No. 16 of1905, of a servant for quitting service* without notice or reasonable•cause, it appeared that the mistress had slapped and abused theservant and had told her that she would spoil her register bookHeld, that the servant had reasonable cause for quitting serviceand was not liable to be convicted under the above Ordinance.
T
HE accused, who was a nurse, was charged with quitting theservice of the complainant without notice or reasonable cause
under section 2 of Ordinance No. 16 of 1905, and was convicted bythe Magistrate (T. B. Russel, Esq.) and sentenced to pay a fine ofRs. 25, or, in default, to undergo one month's rigorous imprison-ment.
The accused appealed.
<■?. Koch, for accused, appellant.—The appeal is on the law. Theaccused was a nurse or governess, and so is not a domestic servantand punishable under Ordinance No. 11 of 1865. (Middleton J.—Can you argue this, seeing that the accused has been registeredunder the Ordinance ?) If the Court holds against me on thispoint, I will not press it further. The next point is that the acceptedfacts show that the accused had reasonable cause for leaving without
1907.June 14
( 202 )
1907. notice. She has been slapped and abused, and it is submitted thatJune 14. any assault by a master is reasonable cause. The relation of masterand servant is purely contractual. In return for a stated wagethe servant agrees to perform certain duties, but cannot be intendedto give the master the right, during the subsistence, of the contract,of compritting any assault. (Encyclopedia of the Laws of England,vol. 8, p. 286.) It has been held that an assault by a master isreasonable cause for quitting without notice, RamanatJian (1877),p. 129; 2 Grenier (1873), p. 85; P. C., PaAadure, No. 14.977 j1Kiribanda v. Nagamma,2 In W instone v. Linn3 it was held thatthe rights of a master over his servant did not extend to personalcorrection.
Cur. adv. vult.
14th June, 1907. Middleton J.—.
In this case the appellant, who is a Burgher young woman occupy-ing the position of a nurse and registered as a domestic servantunder Ordinance No. 28 of 1871, was convicted under section 2 ofOrdinance No. 16 of 1905 of quitting service without notice orreasonable cause and fined Rs. 25. For her it is argued thatreasonable cause existed, inasmuch as she was at least on oneoccasion slapped by her mistress, abused in disgusting language,and told to go.•
The circumstances under which the defendant left her mistress'sservice were not favourable, inasmuch – as on ..the same night shequitted the bungalow, another servant disappeared, and with themtheir mistress's purse containing Rs. 15 and some blank chequesfrom a cheque book and also the appellant’s pocket register. Theappellant admits taking her register, which her mistressaccuses her of stealing,- saying it was at the bottom of her box.The fact that she must have searched through that box of thecomplainant to get the register, and that nothing is missing from it,apparently shows that the appellant took no advantage of heropportunity on that occasion, and together with the good characterreceived from her last employer lead to the belief that the chargeof stealing the purse and cheques which was prefeired against herand dismissed was equally untrue, and that she merely took advan-tage of the other servant's departure to get him to carry her thingsfor her. It is of course quite possible that the disappearance of^the things alleged to'be stolen may be accounted. for by the factthat they were taken by the boy without the girl's knowledge.
Cases reported in 2 Grenier (1873), p, 85; Ramanatlnan (1&77),
p. 129; Kiribanda v. Nagamma;2 Winstone v. Linn,3 and thei 8.G. Min., June 18, 1896.2 S.C. Min., September 15, 1898.
* (1823) 1 B. 6 a 469.
( 203 )
Encyclopedia of the Laws of England, vol. 8, p. 236, were referredto by Counsel for the appellant. In Kiribanda v. Nagamma1 thedefendant was given two outs and told to go, and Lawrie J. heldthat in quitting service under these circumstances the oooly hadreasonable cause.
The complainant here adinits slapping the accused on one occasion,abusing or scolding her, but not using the filthy language attributedto her, and says that she may have told accused she would spoil herbook, and accuses her of stealing her register book, to which theaccused had a right.
In my opinion the evidence shows that it was time, as Lawrie J.said, the accused left the complainant's service, and I hold that shehad reasonable cause to do so without notice.
I therefore set aside the conviction and acquit the accused.
Appeal allowed: accused acquitted.
1907.
June 14.
Middleton-
J.