Is It Necessary for a Mistress to Give Her Servant a Character?

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XXXIV, Issue 14, 8 April 1905, Page 59

Is It Necessary for a Mistress to Give Her Servant a Character?

SOME USEFUL ADVICE TO DISTRESSED HOUSEKEEPERS.

The servant problem, like the poor, is always with us. Whenever ladies run short of a topic of conversation, if such a thing can be imagined, they invariably turn to the everlasting question of servants.

In view of this it may be as well to put down one or two words of advice dealing with this thorny problem, and bearing particularly on the “character” which usually speeds the parting and accompanies the coming handmaiden. A servant has no legal right to demand a character from the mistress she is leaving. But if a servant has been faithful in the discharge of her duties, it would be an exceedingly wrongful act on the part of any mistress to refuse to give her in return for her services some acknowledgment which she could show in applying for a fresh situation.

Sometimes, of course, a definite agreement is entered into at the beginning of service between the servant and her mistress, that at the expiration of a certain time a character shall be given,

but apart from such definite arrangement, there is no compulsion whatever on the mistress to do so.

But assuming that a character is given, the mistress must make no state ment which she does not believe to be true in order to induce the new mistress to engage the servant. This remark is two edged. It implies that the mistress must not disparage her servant falsely, but, on the other hand, she much not ascribe to her qualities which she does not possess. If she does, she will be liable to be sued by the mistress she has deceived.

Sometimes a servant is unsatisfactory. Mrs Smith, the possible new mistress, writes to Mrs Jones, the old mistress, and asks her to state what is the character of Sarah. Mrs Jones knows that Sarah is a thoroughly undesirable servant, but she is rather afraid that if she puts down in writing what she really thinks of Sarah, Sarah may get hold of the letter, and possibly bring an action against her for defama tion of character. But provided Mrs

Jones is honest in the matter she need have no fears, for the communication to Mrs Smith is what is known by lawyers as a "privileged communication,’* and she will not be liable to be sued by Sarah unless the statement which she makes about her is not only untrue but also inspired by a malicious motive.

1-et us take an instance. Mrs Jones has constantly praised Sarah while she was in her service. She has told her what a good servant she is, and remarked to her friends what a treasure she has got. Sarah, relying on this estimate of her work, has asked for an increase in wages. This has led to trouble. The cordial relations existing between Sarah and Mrs Jones have been broken and Sarah gives notice and applies to Mrs Smith for a new situation. Then Mrs Smith writes to Mrs Jones for a character, and Mrs Jones, anxious to revenge herself on Sarah for the trouble to which she has been put in finding a new servant, writes to say that Sarah is lazy and ineoanpetenti. In this instance Sarah would have the right of action against Mrs Jones, because she had said what was not true, and had been actuated by a distinctly malicious motive in saying so. Let us take another instance in which a lady is sometimes faced by the fear of a libel action in connection with ser vants. Mrs Robinson and Mrs Brown are next-door neighbours. Mrs Robinson is aware that Jane, who is Mrs Brown's housemaid, entertains largely whenever Mrs Brown is out, and she has seen various members of the forces who serve the State, be they policemen or be they soldiers, issuing at a late hour from the area of Mrs Brown’s house. Mrs Robinson decides to write to Mrs Brown on the subject. Mrs Brown believes in Jane and shows her the letter, and Jane brings an action against Mrs Robinson for defamation of character.

The whole question depends on whether the words were written with the honest intention of giving. 'M!rs Brown information of what was going on in her home, or whether the letter was prompted by an idle, gossiping and malicious spirit. If, therefore, Mrs Robinson’ is simply trying to serve her neighbour in a kindly way as she would wish to be served herself, she is perfectly safe in giving information.

Cases have been known in which ser vants. unable to obtain character from their late mistresses, have supplied the deficiency by writing a character for themselves. Such an act renders them open to criminal prosecution. It was felt in England about the end of the eighteenth, century to be quite correct, in the year 1792, that mistresses should be protected from such frauds. There-

fore a fine of 100 dollars, or in default of payment, imprisonment with hard labour for anything from one month to three, was imposed on any servant who acted in sueh a dishonest manner. The act comprehends other dishonest acts by servants. Sometimes a servant who has been in a situation, and who has been dismissed without a character, is naturally anxious to hide the fact. She is unable to forge a character, and she thinks that the simplest thing to do would be to say that she has never been in service before. But the law does not allow a dishonest servant to hide her past in this way, and the same penalty awaits her as is stated . hove.

The legislators felt that in spite of this enactment it would still be very easy for servants to continue their career of deceit. The ordinary householder is far too lazy to prosecute a dishonest servant. He may turn her out. bag and baggage, but the idea of wasting a day at the police court over her is, as a rule, speedily dismissed. So the worthies who framed this law decided that they must make it more stringent still to bring these erring domestics to justice. You will notice above that the penalty is 100 dollars. Half of that sum is taken by the authorities and the other half is presented to the person who gives the information that leads to the conviction.