BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Rae v The Partners of the Glass-work Company at Leith, and Milne, their Clerk and Cashier. [1750] Mor 13989 (20 June 1750)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1750/Mor3213989-082.html Cite as:
[1750] Mor 13989
Rae v. The Partners of the Glass-work Company at Leith, and Milne, their Clerk and Cashier
Date: 20 June 1750 Case No. No 82.
Where a servant is dismissed between terms, how his damage to be estimated.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Rae brought an action in August 1748, before the Justices of the Peace, against the said James Milne, for a year's wages, as one of the teasers to the glass-work (which business is to serve and tease the fires) being 14s. per week, deducting two weeks paid, in respect he had, at the end of the said two weeks, been dismissed, although he had been hired by the said James Milne in the June preceding for a year. And after various proceedings, the Justices, upon the 9th February 1749, “Found it presumed, that the pursuer either was or might have been some way usefully employed for the fifty weeks he was out of service, during the time libelled; and found, that he could not be entitled to the same wages during that time that he might have been entitled to had he been at work; and therefore modified the wages to the half, and decerned for L.17:10s. Sterling.”
The pursuer presented a bill of advocation, which the Ordinary “refused;” and the Lords, on advising petition and answers, “adhered.”
It is the common practice, in case of a servant's refusing to come home to his service, for the Justices of the Peace to decern him in double of his wages. Instances of masters refusing to admit a servant to enter, or turning him off without a fault, more rarely happen; but, should it happen, the servant seems to have much to say for more than his wages, as he must feed himself till he get other employment; nor is it clear that he is bound to seek other employment. But all cases of that kind must depend on circumstances; and such there were in this case not favourable for the pursuer, but which it is not thought necessary to state particularly.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 233. Kilkerran, (Reparation.) No 8. p. 491.
