Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/353

 320

The Green Bag

without a license, the judgment of the different jurisdictions. In England it is Supreme Court (Gavegan, J.) was that presumed to be a hiring for a year re no offense had been committed. gardless of the nature of the service, Finally, the Court quoted the decision unless there is a custom relating to the of the Court of Appeals in People v. subject and it appears that the contract Pierce. Here, in exonerating the owner was made with reference to the custom of a pistol, the court ruled that "the act (Fawcett v. Cash, 3 Nev. & Man., 177; in question regards weapons used for Littey v. Elwin, 2 Ad. & EL, 742; Davis criminal purposes, such as slingshots v. Marshall, 4 L. T., N. S. 216). In and sandbags, and not ordinary weapons some states a stipulation as to the employed for legitimate reasons and method of payment, such as weekly, contemplated by the Constitution and monthly or yearly, is held to denote the the Bill of Rights." This reading, period of service contracted for (Tatterpatently not in the mind of the framer son v. Suffolk Mfg. Co., 106 Mass., 56; of the Sullivan act, hedged in the law Franklin Mining Co. v. Harris, 24 Mich., to application only in regard to such 116; Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. J. Law., weapons as are associated with criminals. 343). In this state the rule is settled that unless a definite period of service is Master and Servant. Contract of specified in the contract the hiring is Hiring at Will — Termination without at will and the master has the right to discharge and the servant to leave at Notice. N. Y. any time." An agreement was entered into by the plaintiff, holding about one-third of Procedure. Technicalities of Plead the stock of a manufacturing corpora tion, and the defendant, owning two- ing — Frivolous Objections to Indictment U. S. thirds, whereby the defendant under as Wanting Definiteness. Following its own precedents, and took to devote his whole time and attention to the business of the corpora exhibiting a tendency that some of our tion, no period of employment being state courts have been reluctant to specified. After a short period the follow, thereby subjecting themselves defendant left the employ of the plain to the charge that they allow techni calities to obstruct justice, the United tiff and started a competing business. In Watson v. Grigino, decided by the States in Hendricks v. U.S., decided New York Court of Appeals, March 8 Feb. 19, refused to sustain what it (N. Y. Law Jour., Mar. 23), it was held called a frivolous contention that an that no time being specified, the con indictment be set aside for technical tract was one of hiring at will, and the uncertainty. The indictment charged master had the right to discharge or the subordination of perjury before a federal servant to leave at any time, without grand jury, and the Court refused to affording the other party any claim for treat it as wanting definiteness merely damages. Consequently plaintiff could because if did not set forth the matter not recover. under investigation by the grand jury The Court (Vann, J.) said: — or the name of a specified defendant "The effect of a general contract of under investigation. Mr. Chief Justice hiring, no time being specified, varies in White wrote the opinion.