BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Lady Mary L. Craufurd - Forsyt - Adam v. Archibald Reid - Fullerto - Brougham [1822] UKHL 1_Shaw_124 (13 March 1822)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1822/1_Shaw_124.html
Cite as: [1822] UKHL 1_Shaw_124

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 124

(1822) 1 Shaw 124

No. 28.


CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.

2 D DIVISION.

Lady Mary L. Craufurd,     Appellant—Forsyth—Adam

v.

Archibald Reid,     Respondent.—Fullerton—Brougham

March 13. 1822.

Lord Glenlee.

Subject_Master and Servant. —

Circumstances in which it was found, (reversing the judgment of the Court of Session,) that a mistress was entitled to dismiss a servant who had been absent from his service for four days without leave.

In 1810, Lady Mary Lindsay Craufurd hired Reid to be her principal gardener at her seat called the Priory in the county of Fife, where she had an extensive garden, with pinery, hot-houses, &c. Prior to the month of February 1812, it was arranged that Reid should leave her service at Martinmas thereafter. On Thursday the 6th of February (being the day of the King's fast) Reid went to Edinburgh, and did not return till the following Sunday. Lady Mary immediately dismissed him; and he having declined to remove from a house which he possessed as her gardener, she raised an action before the Sheriff of Fife to compel him to do so. In defence he stated, that although he had obtained no special leave to go to Edinburgh, or to be absent, yet he had previously received general instructions to procure a quantity of forest trees, which were to be planted at this time of the year;—that, with the view of getting these trees, he went to Edinburgh, where he ordered them;—that by various accidents he had been detained longer than he intended, but had only been absent two working days;—that, on former occasions, he had repeatedly, in consequence of such general instructions, gone from home on the business of his mistress, when convenient, without obtaining special liberty to do so, and that no complaint had been made on that account. To this it was answered, that he had gone to Edinburgh on his own private business; that although he had made a pretence of purchasing trees, yet he had not done so; and that he had no such general instructions as alleged. The Sheriff having allowed a proof, it appeared that Reid had called on several nurserymen, and had ordered a large quantity of forest trees for Lady Mary; but that he had afterwards forbidden them to be sent, and that he had told two of the witnesses that he had come to Edinburgh to inquire for a situation as a gardener. The Sheriff found that Lady Mary “was warranted in dismissing him from her service, and that he was bound to remove from the house mentioned in the petition. Reid having brought an advocation, and raised an action concluding for wages till Martinmas 1812, Lord Glenlee reported the case; and the Court, after being equally divided in opinion, and having called in Lord Pitmilly, found “that the dismissal of the pursuer Archibald Reid by the defender Lady

Page: 125

Mary Lindsay Craufurd from her service was not warranted;” and found him entitled to wages and board-wages to the term of Martinmas subsequent to the dismissal. To this interlocutor they adhered on the 19th of November 1816. * Lady Mary then entered an appeal, 1. Because Reid had no right, without special leave, to be absent from her service for four days; and, as, 2. Because, as he had not shown any sufficient justification, and it had been proved that he had gone upon his own private business, and as there was no evidence of the alleged general instructions, she had a right forthwith to dismiss him; and consequently he had no claim to wages subsequent to that period. To this it was answered, that he had, in point of fact, been absent on the business of his mistress; and that although he had not obtained special leave to go at the particular time, yet, from former practice, he was led to suppose that this was left to his own discretion. The House of Lords “Ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors complained of be reversed.”

Solicitors: J. Chalmer,— J. Richardson,—Solicitors.

(Ap. Ca. No. 10.)

_________________ Footnote _________________

* Not reported.

1822


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1822/1_Shaw_124.html