* It has been held, that a master who uses due care in the selection and employment of his servants, is not responsible to one of them for an injury received from the carelessness of month, that C. was not entitled to payment for N.'s board daring his sickness; but that N. could not recover wages for any part of the time of his detention from work by sickness. "Another question," Hubbard, J., remarked, " might have been raised on this contract, namely, whether the plaintiff might not have been entitled to payment for his whole time; but by crediting the loss of time he has precluded that inquiry, and is properly bound by his admission. Nor, without a specific agreement to that effect, can the master deduct the value of articles injured or lost by the servant; but must bring a cross action therefor. Le Loir v. Bristow, 4 Camp. 134. But see Snell v. The Independence, Gilpin, 40; The New Phoenix, 2 Hagg. Add. 420. If the servant is an infant, the master may deduct from his wages such sums as he has paid for the infant's necessaries, but no other. Hedgley v. Holt, 4 C. & P. 104. In this case, Bayley, J., said: "Payments made on account of wages due to an infant, for necessaries, and which could not be avoided, are valid payments; but an infant cannot bind herself for things which are not necessary; indeed, even the statement of an account does not bind an infant. It appears that this young woman was under age when she settled the account. The consequences might be very injurious if the law were otherwise. What would it lead to in this very case ? Here is a female, who is described as rather a showy woman, suffered to dress in a manner quite unfitted to her station; and at the end of her twelve months' servitude she would not have a farthing in her pocket." In Adams v. The Woonsocket Company, 11 Met. 827, a father, whose minor daughter was employed by a manufacturing company, at a distance of many miles from his residence, forbade them to employ her any further, and gave them notice that if they should continue to employ her, he should demand $3.50 per week for her time and labor, without any deduction on any account whatever, and also directed them not to pay or allow her any thing, either goods or money, on account of her labor. It was held, in an action of assumpsit by the father against the company, to recover pay for his daughter's labor subsequently done for them, that he was entitled to recover only as much as her labor was reasonably worth, deducting the price of board provided for her by them, without any deduction for clothing, which they provided for her.

(w) In Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1, Lord Abinger says, that this should be such care as the master may reasonably be expected to take of himself. And see Paterson v. Wallace, 28 £. L. & E. 48.

(x) Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1. In Buzzell v. Laconia Man. Co. 48 Me. 113, it is held to he the duty of the master to keep safe and convenient all bridges, passageways, or ladders, necessary to be used by the employee, in going to or returning from his labor. See also Ormond v. Holland, 96 Eng. C. L. 102.

1 A master should warn an inexperienced servant of the dangers of the work committed to him, O'Connor v. Adams, 120 Mass. 427; and put guards about dangerous machinery, failing which he is liable, Button v. Great Western Cotton Co. L. R. 7 Ex. 130, as well as for defects in machinery unknown to the servant, but which the master with ordinary care could have cured. Walsh v. Peet Valve Co. 110 Mass. 23 ; Booth v. Boston, Ac. R. Co. 67 N. Y. 593; Dillon v. Union Pacific, etc. R. Co. 3 Dillon, 319. - A cab-owner has been held liable for furnishing to a driver a horse not reasonably fit to be driven in a cab, in Fowler v. Lock, L. R. 7 C. P. 272; 10 C. P. 90; a railroad for allowing a derrick after disuse to remain so as to be thrown down by natural causes, to the injury of a brakeman, in Holden v. Fitchbnrg R. Co. 129 Mass. 268; and a corporation for furnishing giant powder without explaining its use, in Smith v. Oxford Iron Co. 13 Vroom, 467.

another while employed in the master's service. (y) l And the rule has been applied to the case where the party injured was not the servant of the defendants, but was, at the time of the injury, voluntarily assisting their servants; (z) 2 and also where the servants are employed in distinct departments of the general business. (zz) But where the servants, though employed upon common work, are in the employment of different masters, and for separate ends, as in the case of a servant of a carrier injured by the negligence of a merchant's porter, in the process of delivering goods from a warehouse on board a dray, to be transported by the carrier for the merchant, the master of the negligent servant will be responsible to the other servant for the injury. (a) 3 The

(y) Farwell v. Boston & Worcester R. R. Co. 4 Met. 49; Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1; Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 594; Hutchinson v. York, Newcastle, & Berwick Railway Co. 5 Exch. 343; Wigmore v. Jay, id. 364; Tarrant v. Webb, 18 C. B. 797. See also Skipp v. Eastern Counties R. Co. 9 Exch. 223; Hubgh v. New Orleans Railroad, 6 La. An. 495; Ryan v. The Comb. Valley Railroad Co. 23 Penn. St. 384; Coon v. Syracuse & Utica Railroad, 1 Seld. 493; Sherman v. Rochester & Syracuse Railroad, 15 Barb. 574; Albro v. Agawam Canal Co. 6 Cush. 75; Shields v. Yonge, 15 Ga. 349; Mitchell v. Penn. R. R. Co. Amer. Law Register, Oct. 1853, p. 717; Honner v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. 15 111. 550; The Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Tindall, 13 Ind. 366; C. & X. & L. M. R. R.

Co. v. Webb, 12 Ohio St. 475; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Cox, 21 Ill. 20; Hard, Adm'r v. Vt. & Canada R. R. Co. 32 Vt. 473; contra, Little Miami Railroad Co. v. Stevens, 20 Ohio, 415; Cleveland, Colum. & Cincin. R. R. Co. v. Kearney, 3 Ohio St. 201; Manville v. Cleveland & Toledo R. R. Co. 11 Ohio St. 417; Chamberlain v. Mil. & Miss. R. R. Co. 11 Wis. 238, and the Scotch case of Dixon v. Ranken, 20 Law Times, 44; Gilman v. Eastern R. R. Co. 10 Allen, 233; Burke v. Norwich R. R. Co. 34 Conn. 474.