Violation of revenue laws, licensing laws, health hiws, and in

the case of libel and nuisance.

The exceptions may be stated as follows: A master is

liable criminally for the criminal act of his servant committed

In the course of the employment, —

(1) if expressly or impliedly the statute defining the

offence penalizes the proprietor of a business or of property

In case the prohibited act is done in the conduct of his busi-

ness or property without reference to his knowledge or assent ;

(2) if he has authorized, assented to, or participated in the act;

(3) if by his negligent failure to exercise due control over

the conduct of his business or property he has suffered the

act to be done by a servant in the course of the employment.

В§ 266. Absolute liability.

Where the statute defining an offence penalizes one whose

business is carried on in a manner prohibited by the statute,

It is immaterial whether the failure to comply with the statu-

tory requirement is due to a personal default of the proprietor

of the business, or to a default on the part of one to whom he

has intrusted the conduct of the business. In either case the

1 Comm. I'. Morgan, 107 Mass. 199. See also Bisliop, dim. Law, "Vol. 1.,

В§649.

FOR CRIMES OF SERVANTS. 325

proprietor is liable to the penalty. This may be illustrated

by reference to licensing laws and health laws.

Licensing Laivs, When the state grants a license to do

that which without the license would be unlawful, it may

Impose a penalty for any violation of the conditions, whether

by the licensee or by those to whom he intrusts the conduct

of the husiness.^ It is often a question of nice construction

whether the law imposes an absolute liability to conduct the

business in a particular way, or whether it renders the licensee

liable only for an intentional violation.^ If the former, then

the master is liable for a violation by his servant, even though

contrary to the will and the positive orders of the master ; ^

if the latter, then the master is liable only if he knew of or

countenanced the violation.* A sale by an agent or servant

in the ordinary course of the employment, but contrary to law,

makes a prima facie case against the master which the latter

may rebut by proof that such sale was in good faith for-

bidden by him.^

Many cases have arisen in which a master is sought to be

held criminally liable for some violation by his servant of the

laws governing the sale of intoxicating liquors and the con-

duct of the premises where such sales are made. It is quite

impossible to reconcile all of the cases under this head. The

decision depends frequently upon a nice construction of the

language of the statute.

If the statute, however, imposes an absolute duty upon the

defendant, as the duty to keep his saloon closed at certain

hours, or to place or remove screens at certain hours, then a

violation of this duty will render the master liable to the

penalty although the violation may be due to the wilful

disobedience of a servant.^

1 Collman v. Mills, 1897, 1 Q. B. 396.

^ See cases discussed in Bond v. Evans, L. R. 21 Q. B. D. 249.

8 Mullins V. CoUins, L. R. 9 Q. B. 292 ; Bond v. Evans, L. R. 21 Q. B.

D. 249.

* Kearley v. Tonga, 60 L. J. M. C. 159; Coram, v. Nichols, 10 Met.

(Mass.) 259 ; Comm. v. Wachendorf, 141 Mass. 270.

5 State V. McCance, 110 Mo. 398.

6 People V. Roby, 52 Mich. 577; Comm. v. Kelley, 140 Mass. 441.

326 LIABILITY OF MASTER

In some jurisdictions the statutes are so framed as to make

a dealer liable for any violation of the liquor laws upon his

premises, whether by his own act or by the act of a servant.

In such case the dealer cannot escape liability by proving

that the violation was contrary to his orders or will.^

Health Laws. Health laws to prevent the adulteration of

foods, or the sale of one product under the guise of another,

are very common. They provide variously for private penal-

ties, public penalties, or indictment. The liability of a master

for the violation of the law by his servant will frequently

depend upon the form of the statute. In the case of Rex v.

Dixon^ the defendant was indicted for using alum in bread

contrary to the statute and convicted upon proof that the

alum was put in the bread by his foreman. Under a New

York statute providing that the penalty for knowingly sell-