Useful Information.

Auckland Chronicle and New Zealand Colonist, Volume 1, Issue 7, 21 December 1842, Page 4

Useful Information.

A SERVANT’S CHARACTER. In a recent case, heard before Lord Dpuman, a governess received damages to the amount of £4O against a former mbtress, in consequence of a written character, through the influence of which another laay declined to hiie her. It appeared that the lady in whose service she had lived, and with whom she had resided for fourteen months, had suddenly discharged her; and that, upon being applied to afterwards for her character by another lady who wanted to employ her, she stated that the governess was incompetent, illtempered, and unladylike in her deportment ; and that it was because of these faults she had parted with her. Upon the receipt of this information the governess lost the place she was seeking, and appealed her remedy to a jury. As far as we-can gather the motives of the verdict from the scanty rlport in the newspapers, it seems that the jury conthe letter to have been written ■Bh a malicious purpose, and upon that gave a verdict for the plaintiff. The result of this trial has furnished a general topic of conversation throughout the wee* and the heads-of families, with that invariable regard for their own interests which usually distinguishes people

'ho have vested interests to protect, eon sider the principle laid down by the jury to be highly objectionable. We confess so should we, if we could distiue |y trace any iuj istice in it. But the principle is by no means clear, and the main question, as concerns the tights of masters and servants, stands, in fact, exactly where L did before this verdict was pronounced. It has ever been held a domestic privilege, indispensable to the security of society, that a master should be protected in the exercise of his undoubted right tcv give a tiue chatacter of a dismissed ser vant. It it were not so, there would be an end to private life at once. Servants would wield a fearful tyranny over uias ters, and an obvious anomaly, fraught with indescribable evils, would be established in the very heart of our social system. ! he law, therefore, has always regarded such written characters as ** privileged communications/’ and nothing can deprive them of that attribute but internal falsehood or malice. The law does not protect the libeller; and whoever commits a libel, in any form, whether it be in the shape of a letter or a book, or uttered words, brings himself at once under a serious legal responsibility. It is evident, then, that nobody but the master himself can abrogate this" fight of giving a true character of a discharged servant. But the character must be a true one, II it be not, the law will not, and ought not, to protect the writer.

Take an opposite view of the case, Suppose a master, out of mistaken kindness, or from a nervous reluctance to keep a fellow creature out of employment, represented a servant as being honest, who was, in fact, a rogue—or well tempered, who was, in fact, surly and obstinate—the master who hired the servant, in reliance upon such statement, would have his action for damages against the master who thus misrepresented the facts. Cases of this kind occur every day, and nobody finds fault with the principle on which they are based; because every body sympathises with the grievances of masters, and regards this species of "long as a v<-ry dangerous invasion of their own security.

Now, it it be wrong, even from the most generous motives, to expose the master to the risk of an inefficient servant, is it not, at least, equally wrong to expose the servant to the risk of being kept < ut of the means of exis ence ? Why should the verdict of a jury be bailed with satisfaclion in the same case, and looked upon with distrust and repugnance in the other? It it be right to protect masters against false good characters, is it not equally right, to sny the least of it, to protect servants against false bad character ? In the one case the injury is slight, temporary, and easily remedied ; in the other it is deep, perhaps permanent, and always difficult to repair. Why should we take the lesser eril under our special care, and treat the greater with indifference, resent ing even the attempt to obtain indemnity for it ?

Upon the particular merits of the case which has suggested these remarks we make no comments. We do not p.ofess to understand it sufficiently, as it is reported, to justify any observations. Bat we suppose the jury understood it, and we assume that their verdict must be understood as marking their sense of the matter it involved. All we desire to point out is the legitimate claim of the servant to protection in an equal ratio with the master. Let there be no injustice on either side, and let us throw open the means of redress with equal facility to both. Thif is the sum of oar opinion. Perhaps the subject may demand a larger consideration when we have more space, but lor the present it is enough to “ point the moral” of the governess’s tale,— Atlas.