Queen Victoria - "The Letters of Queen Victoria, Volume 1 (of 3), 1837 to 1843)"

Nehemiah Adams - "Bertha and Her Baptism"

Louis Bertrand - "Saint Augustin"

Bernie Babcock - "The Coming of the King"

Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007
This paper argues that discourses of love in Ghanaian market literature for youth offer a view into complex negotiations of agency and empowerment. Drawing on Deborah Durham's notion of youth as "social `shifters'" and Francis Nyamnjoh's conception of the "interconnectedness" of agency, I take Ghanaian market literature as one specific case of how African literature for youth foregrounds questions of continuity and change as African societies enter into increasingly complex global relations. In this literature for youth, received notions of love, often constructed out of impressions from American pop and hip hop music, carry new notions of agency that compete with existing "domesticated" forms. Authors like Ike Tandoh and Evelyn Tay employ discourses of love to offer youth alternative avenues for empowerment in a context of socio-economic disenfranchizement. In a creative process of "straddling", this writing both reveals and reproduces the contradictions that obtain in youth configurations of agency.

Up To Date Business

V >> Various >> Up To Date Business




_What time does the law fix for presenting cheques for payment?_ The
rule everywhere is that the holder must present a cheque received by
him, if drawn on a bank in the place where he lives, on the day of
receiving it or on the next day. If the cheque is drawn on a bank at
a distance, out of town, then he should send it to that bank, either
directly or by leaving it with another bank for that purpose, on the
same day as he received it or the next day. In other words, _he must
take steps to collect the cheque either on the day of receiving it or
the following one_.

A friend of mine gave a cheque to a merchant in payment of a small
bill. Both lived in the same town, where the bank on which the cheque
was drawn was also located. About a week afterward the bank failed and
the merchant wrote to him, stating the unwelcome fact and that the
cheque had not been collected and desired him to send another. I asked
my friend if he complied with the request, and he said: "Certainly." I
told him that he ought not to have done so, for he was under no
obligation either in law or morals to do such a thing. Had he known
the above rule he would not have sent the second cheque, for it was
pure negligence on the part of the merchant in not presenting it--in
fact, on the same day it was received.

A person may, of course, hold a cheque for a much longer period than
the time above mentioned and present it and receive payment, but the
point that we are trying to make clear is that _the risk of holding
it_ during this period _is the holder's and not the risk of the maker
of the cheque_. I suppose the merchant in the above case had, perhaps,
lost the cheque. Every now and then one is mislaid and, consequently,
is not presented for payment when it should be, but the maker ought
not to suffer for the negligence of the receiver of his cheque. The
rule of law that we have given is founded on justice, and if the
receiver is negligent in not presenting it as he should, the holder
ought not to suffer.

_It is the duty of a bank to pay a cheque just as it is drawn, and if
it makes any mistakes it must suffer._ The reason for this rule is
that the maker does not expect to see his cheque again after it leaves
his hand, and when he puts his money in a bank for safe-keeping the
bank virtually says to him that it will pay only on his order just as
he has written. It will guard his interests carefully and pay no
forged cheques or cheques that have been altered in dates or amounts,
to his injury. Now, it is quite a common thing for cheques to be
forged, and still more common for them to be raised. A scoundrel gets
a cheque that is genuine, ordering a bank to pay $18, and changes it
to $1800. He presents it for payment and it is paid. By and by the
depositor finds out that he has not as much money in the bank as he
supposed he had there. What has happened? Some one has altered one of
his cheques and drawn out too much. He goes to the bank and makes
inquiry, learns that this is so, and then demands that it shall make
the amount good to him. Usually a bank is obliged to pay.

There is one limit to this rule. _A man making a cheque must be
careful to write it in such a way that changes or alterations cannot
easily be made._ If he is careless, leaving ample space so that
changes can be made in the amount, then he will be considered
negligent, and a bank would not be obliged to make good his loss. If,
on the other hand, he is careful in drawing his cheques then a bank's
duty to protect him is plain, and it is liable in the event of
neglecting to do so.

A few years ago a man drew a cheque for $250, dated it three days
ahead, and left it with his clerk, directing him to draw the money on
the day written in the cheque and pay the men who worked for him, and
went away. The clerk thought that he would like to keep that money
himself and take a little journey also, so he changed the date to one
day earlier, went into the bank on that day and drew the money, and
started for the Klondike or some other place. The maker of the cheque
soon found out what had happened and demanded of the bank to make the
amount good. The bank said to him: "Suppose the clerk had waited one
day longer and then drawn the money, you would have been the loser
just the same." The man admitted all this, but replied, nevertheless,
that he had not changed the date; that the bank ought to have seen the
alteration before paying, and as it did not it was negligent in that
regard, and the bank was obliged to lose.

When a person takes a cheque he naturally supposes that the bank on
which it is drawn owes the money to him because he can truly demand
it. _Suppose a bank refuses to pay, can the holder then sue the bank
for money?_ In six States--Illinois, South Carolina, Missouri,
Kentucky, Colorado, and Texas--the holder of such a cheque can sue the
bank and get his money. The courts in those States say that a cheque
is an assignment or transfer of the amount of money stated to the
holder of the cheque from the time that the cheque was given him. The
law in all of the other States is otherwise, and a bank for a good
reason can decline to pay a cheque, and, in any event, the holder
cannot sue the bank for the amount. If it will not pay he must look to
the maker and not the bank for payment. Of course, _a cheque must
always be drawn against a deposit, and it is a fraud on the part of a
person to draw a cheque on a bank when he has no money there_.
Sometimes mistakes are made by banks in their bookkeeping, and they
think they have not the money to pay when in truth they have. In such
cases they sometimes decline to pay, but even if they had the money
the law says that there is no contract between the holder of a cheque
and the bank on which it is drawn, and therefore the holder cannot
sue it should it refuse to pay. This rule, however, is rather losing
ground and the other is coming into more general favour--that a cheque
does operate to transfer the money of the maker to the holder and,
consequently, that he has a right to sue the bank for the money.

Cheques are made payable either to bearer or order. If a cheque is
made payable to bearer it can be transferred from one person to
another simply by handing it to him--by delivery; but if a cheque is
made payable to order, then the person who receives it, if wishing to
transfer it to some one else, must write his name on the back. If he
writes his name on the back it is called a blank indorsement, and this
form is often used in transferring cheques. If, however, a person
intends to send a cheque through the mail he should never write it
payable to bearer, but always payable to the order of a particular
person, so as to require his name to be written thereon in order to
make a good transfer. This is a much safer way of sending cheques than
simply by making them payable to bearer.


XV. THE LAW RELATING TO LEASES

A LEASE IS AN AGREEMENT, and, as every one knows, usually relates to
the hiring of lands and houses. _If the agreement is to be for a
longer period than one year it should be in writing_, for if it be not
either party can avoid it, not morally but in law. The statute of
frauds, which has been explained, would shield either party in not
carrying out such an agreement if it were not in writing if by its
terms it was to last for a longer period than one year.

There is another very important reason for putting such an agreement
in writing. Much of the law relating to the two parties, landlord and
tenant, is one-sided and in favour of the landlord. Our law on that
subject is based on the English law. It was imported in the early
colonial days, and, though it has been greatly changed by statute and
by decisions of the courts, it is still very one-sided, as we shall
see before finishing this paper. For this reason, especially, all
leases relating to houses and stores or other buildings, even for a
short period, should be in writing, with the rights and duties of both
parties fully stated, so that both may clearly know what to do and to
expect.

Unless something is said in the lease concerning repairs the landlord
is not obliged to make any. This statement shows at once the need of
having a written lease. If the house is out of order--the locks,
blinds, doors, and windows are not in good order--the tenant cannot
claim anything of the landlord or require him to put them in good
condition. Even if a house should become unfit for habitation in
consequence of fire, or is blown down, or is flooded with water, the
landlord is not bound to do anything unless he has stated that he will
in his lease.

A fire broke out not long since in a large warehouse and burned it so
completely as to render it wholly unfit for use; indeed, all the
merchandise in it was wholly consumed. Nevertheless, when the lease
expired and the tenants refused to pay as they had agreed to do, the
landlord brought a legal proceeding against them to compel them to pay
during the entire period, as though they had been staying there and
selling goods and making money, and they were compelled to pay. _This
is the common law on the subject_, and every tenant is bound to pay in
such cases unless he has clearly stated in his lease that he is not to
be holden in the event of the destruction of the building by fire,
flood, lightning, or other cause.

Furthermore, it may be added that leases nowadays are often furnished
with blank spaces to be filled up with names, the amounts to be paid,
times of payment, etc., and persons often sign them without even
reading them. They should not do this. They should be careful to read
them over two or three times or more, until they fully understand them
and are sure of their nature before signing or executing them. People
are still more negligent in taking out insurance policies without
reading them. They are very long and parts of them are printed in fine
type and, perhaps, are quite difficult, especially for old eyes, to
read. In truth some of the most important parts are put in the finest
print--some of the exceptions against loss and other matters, which,
we are quite sure, if a person when taking out a policy should read
over and understand he would insist on having changed.

If a house becomes unfit for living therein by its own fault--for
example, if it is overrun with rats, or becomes so decayed that the
weather invades and is thereby rendered unfit--the tenant, so the law
says, has indeed the privilege of quitting, if he did not know these
things at the time of entering; but if he did, he would be required to
live there, however much he might dislike the company of rats or the
presence of the snow or rain, and also to pay his rent; or, if
quitting for that reason, he would still be responsible for the rent
as he would if living in the house. An eminent legal writer has stated
the principle in this way: The tenant can leave if the defect was not
known or anticipated by him, or known or anticipated if he had made a
reasonable investigation or inquiry before he took the lease.

A tenant is not required to make general repairs without an agreement,
but he must make those that are necessary to preserve the house from
injury by rain and wind. If the shingles are blown off or panes of
glass are broken others must be put in their places; and it is said
that he would be bound even for ornamental repairs, like paper and
painting, if he made an agreement to return the house in good order.

A tenant of a farm must manage and cultivate it by the same rules of
husbandry as are practised in his vicinity, and if his lease ends by
any event that is uncertain and could neither have been foreseen nor
foretold, he is entitled to the annual crop sowed or planted by him
while he was in possession.

As we have stated, if the house is wholly destroyed the tenant must
still pay the rent, for the reason, which to many may seem absurd,
that the law regards the land as the principal thing and the house as
secondary. It is true that a man, in the event of his house burning
down, might pitch a tent on the ground and live there, but it would be
a decidedly chilly way of living, especially in the winter-time, in
the northern part of our country. If a tenant should agree to return
and deliver the house at the end of the term in good order and
condition, reasonable wear and tear only excepted, he would be obliged
to rebuild the house if it burned down. Once more, we ask, in view of
these things, ought he not to make a written lease and well understand
its terms before signing it?

The times for paying rent are usually specified in the lease, if one
is made. When they are not the tenant is governed by the usage of the
country or place where he lives.

When nothing is said about underletting the whole or a part to some
one else the tenant has a right to do this, but remains bound to the
landlord for his rent. Generally when written leases are made there is
a clause stating that the tenant cannot underlet any portion or all
without the landlord's consent.

_A tenant is not responsible for taxes unless it is expressly agreed
that he shall pay them._

If a lease be for a fixed time the tenant loses all right or interest
in the land as soon as the lease comes to an end, and he must leave
then or the landlord may turn him out at once, or, in other language,
eject him. If, however, he stays there longer with the consent of the
landlord he is then called a tenant at will and cannot be turned out
by the landlord without giving a notice to him to quit. The statutes
of the several States have fixed the length of time that a notice
must be given by the landlord to his tenant before he can turn him
out. In many States a notice of thirty days must be given; sometimes
sixty days' notice is required, or even longer.

It is an important question _what things a tenant may take away with
him at the expiration of his lease_. Of course, there is no question
whatever with respect to many things. Besides his wife and children he
may take all his furniture and other movable property. But there are
many things fixed to the house by the tenant that he desires to remove
if he has the right to do so, and many questions have been asked and
decided by the courts relating to this subject. The method of
fastening them to the house is the test usually applied to determine
whether they can be taken away or not. If they are fastened by screws
in such a way as to show that the tenant intended to take them away,
he can do so, otherwise he cannot.

In modern times the rule has been changed in favour of the tenant, and
whatever he can remove without injuring the house, leaving it in as
good condition as it would otherwise be, he can take away; for
example, ornamental chimney-pieces, coffee-mills, cornices that are
furnished with screws, furnaces, stoves, looking-glasses, pumps,
gates, fence rails, barns or stables on blocks, etc. On the other
hand, a barn placed on the ground cannot be removed, nor benches
fastened to the house, nor trees, plants, and hedges not belonging to
a gardener by trade, nor locks and keys. Of course, all these things
may be changed by the written lease, and it should be clearly stated
what things may be removed concerning which any doubt may arise. We
have heard of a case in which a tenant put a pier-glass into a house,
fastening it by means of cement. He asked and was given the
landlord's permission to do this at the time of putting it in, but
when the lease ended the landlord would not allow him to take it out,
and an appeal was made to a court, which decided in favour of the
landlord. Doubtless this decision is correct. If the glass could have
been taken away without injuring the wall then it belonged to the
tenant. This shows the need of putting such matters in writing;
otherwise the tenant will suffer unless the landlord be a man of the
highest integrity.


XVI. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYER TO EMPLOYES

Persons who are employed in mills, in erecting buildings, by railroad
companies, and others, are frequently injured while pursuing their
employment, and the question has often arisen whether the employer was
liable for the injury thus suffered by them. The more important of
these questions we propose to answer in this and the following
lecture, as they are matters of every-day importance to many people.

First of all, an employe to recover anything for the loss that may
have happened must show that in some way _his employer was negligent_.
He cannot get something simply because he has been injured. The law in
no country has ever said that he could. In all cases he must show that
his employer failed in his duty in some way toward him to lay the
foundation of an action against him. This is the first principle to
keep clearly in mind.

Again, it is said that an employe cannot recover if the injury has
happened to him in consequence of the negligence of a fellow-servant.
By this is meant a person engaged in the same common employment. It is
not always easy to determine whether two persons employed by the same
company are fellow-servants, as we shall soon see, but the principle
of law is plain enough that in all cases where they are thus acting
as fellow-servants they cannot recover for any injury. The law says
this is one of the risks that a person takes when he enters the
service of another. Suppose a person is at work mining coal and is
injured by another person working by his side through his negligence.
However severely injured he may be he cannot get anything, because the
person through whose negligence he has been injured is a
fellow-workman.

But many employes may have the same common employer and yet not be
fellow-servants. For example, a brakeman would be a fellow-servant
with the conductor and engineer and other persons running on the same
train or on other trains belonging to the same company, but he would
not be a fellow-servant working in the same line of employment with
those who are engaged in the repair-shop of the company.

This statement is quite sufficient to show the difficulty there is
sometimes in deciding whether a person is a fellow-servant or not. If
a person is injured through the negligence of another employed by the
same company who is not a fellow-servant, then he can recover if there
are no other difficulties in the way, otherwise he cannot. It does not
follow that fellow-servants are of the same grade or rank; the test is
whether they are acting in the same line of employment. The brakeman's
position is not so high as that of the engineer or conductor, yet all
three are acting in the same line of employment, and if any one of
them was injured by another in that part of the service the employer
would not be liable.

In a very large number of cases, therefore, employers are not liable
for accidents happening to their employes, because they are injured
through the negligence of other employes engaged in the same line or
subdivision of the common service. Perhaps employers escape more
frequently on this ground than on any other from paying anything for
losses.

Yet there is another ground on which they often escape paying
anything. An employe is supposed when making his contract with his
employer to take on himself all the ordinary risks arising from his
employment. These in many cases are very numerous. He does not assume
extraordinary risks, but he does assume all ordinary risks that are
likely to happen to him. Employes are injured every day and yet can
recover nothing, because their injury is simply a common one, the risk
of which they have assumed.

Would it not be possible to make an employer liable for them all?
Undoubtedly an employe could make a contract of this kind if he wished
and his employer was willing to do so, but if they did the employer
would be unwilling to pay as high wages. The greater the risk assumed
by the employe the larger is the compensation paid; the one thing is
graded by the other. It was stated when considering the rights and
duties of common carriers that they have been lessening their
liabilities; on the other hand, they are carrying for smaller prices
than they once did. Doubtless a carrier would be willing to assume
more risks--every kind of risk, in short--if he were paid enough for
it, but shippers ordinarily are willing to assume many risks for the
sake of the lower rates and insure their risks in insurance companies.
Just so the working-men prefer higher wages and assume many risks of
their employment. There is nothing unfair in this. For example, the
persons who are engaged in making white lead run an unusual risk in
pursuing their employment. It is said nowadays that if they use the
utmost care in protecting themselves from inhaling the fumes that
arise in some stages of this process, they can live quite as long as
other people. But unless they do exercise every precaution their
system finally becomes charged with the poison that arises from this
process and their lives are shortened. They well understand this
before beginning the work; they are told of the risks and are paid
high wages. If, therefore, they undertake such employment, well
knowing the risks, they have no right to complain if their health
after a time suffers. No fraud has been practised on them, and we do
not know that they do complain if they suffer any ill effects from
their work.


XVII. LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS TO EMPLOYES (_Continued_)

In our last lecture we stated some of the principles relating to the
liabilities of employers to their employes; in this lesson the subject
will be continued. _An employer is bound to use some care or
precaution, and if he does not will be responsible for his neglect._
One of these is he must employ persons who are fit for the work they
are set to do. If an employer in mining should put a man to work by
the side of another to mine coal who he knew was not a skilful
workman, and, in consequence of this unskilful workman's
unskilfulness, other miners were injured, he would be responsible for
hiring such a man. Every one will see the justice of this rule.

_The employer must also give proper instructions to the person
employed whenever he does not understand his duties._ If a person is
employed to run a laundry machine who does not understand how to work
it, and other employes are injured through his ignorance, the employer
would be liable. He must, therefore, tell such a person what to do; he
has no right to hazard the lives of others by putting any one who has
no knowledge of a machine to work without instructing him properly.
Again, if a person pretends to be capable, and the employer,
believing him, engages him, and it is soon found out that he is not,
then it is the duty of the employer either to dismiss him or to give
him proper instructions. The rule, however, on this subject is not the
same everywhere. It is sometimes said that if an employe continues to
work by the side of another after knowing that this other is
incompetent, it is his duty to give notice to the employer, and if the
employer continues to employ him, to quit. If he does not he assumes
the greater risk arising from his knowledge of the incompetency of the
other.

_It is the duty of the employer to furnish proper appliances for his
workmen._ He must furnish proper tools and machinery and safe
scaffolding, and in every respect must show a reasonable degree of
care in all these particulars. But the courts say that he is not
obliged to exercise the _utmost_ care, because the employe takes on
himself some risk with respect to the tools and machinery he uses. For
example, it is said that employers are not obliged to use the latest
appliances that are known or appear in the market for the use of their
workmen. If an employer has an older one that has been in use for
years, and the employes have found out all the dangers attending its
use, and a new one appears that is less dangerous to use, the law does
not require the employer to throw the older one away and get the
other. It is true that in many States within the last few years
statutes have been passed by the legislatures requiring employers to
be much more careful than they were formerly in protecting their
machinery. Many injuries have happened from the use of belting, and
the statutes in many cases have stated what must be done in the way of
enclosing belts, and of putting screens around machinery, and in
various ways of so protecting it that persons will be less liable to
suffer. Furthermore, inventors have been very busy in inventing
machinery with this end in view. The old-fashioned car-coupler was a
very dangerous device, and many a poor fellow has been crushed between
cars when trying to couple them. A coupler has been made in which this
danger no longer exists; in truth, there has been a great advance in
this direction.

_An employer must also select suitable materials on which to work._
This is a well-known principle. If he does not, then he is responsible
for the consequences. In one of the cases a person was injured while
erecting a scaffolding from the breaking of a knotty timber. The
testimony was that the knot was visible on the surface and if the
stick had been examined the defect would have been seen. That seemed a
slight defect, surely, but the consequence of using the timber was
very serious, and the court rightly held that as this defect could
have been seen, had the timber been properly examined, the employer
was responsible for the injury to a workman who was injured by the
breaking of it.

Copyright (c) 2007. topboookz.com. All rights reserved.