
    Eaken vs. Harrison.
    A contract for overseer’s wages is not an entire contract by the' year. • If the overseer has been turned off for misconduct, he may notwithstanding recover for the time he conducted himself properly.
    The plaintiff brought his action to recover a year’s wages from the defendant. He was to have received $200 per annum, but was turned off by the defendant in April for misconduct.
    The presiding judge charged the jury that if they thought the circumstances justified the defendant in dismissing the plaintiff, that they ought to find for the defendant, as the contract was entire for the year and the plaintiff should recover all or nothing.
    
      The jury found $56 for the plaintiff.
    
      Peareson for the defendant
    appealed, qn the ground that the contract was entire and the jury should have found generally .'for the defendant. He cited Clancey vs. Robertson, 2 Const. Rep. 404. Adams vs. Cox, ¡1 Nott and M£ Cord 382.
    
      JoMston and M1-Dowell, contra,
    cited Scott vs. Bald* rick, 2 Const. R. 410.
   Cuma, per

Colcock, J.

It is obvious the opinion, of 'the presiding judge is founded on a mistaken view of the 'decisions of the constitutional court in relation to contracts 1 made with overseers, it is supposed that these coiiiracts • háve been considered as entire contracts not susceptible of division, and it must be acknowledged that some of i the cases have, to say the least, a strong inclination to ; that doctrine. But the case of Byrd vs. Boyd, decided , here at our last sitting, has removed all doubt on that ’ subject. Although the employer may have good cause to turn off his overseer, yet if he has faithfully discharged his duty up to the time that the cause of dismission arises he can claim his wáges for the time he has served. So that the verdict in this casé cannot be set aside. Had fhe verdict been given for the whole amount demanded, then it would have been incumbent oh this court to have granted a new trial.

New trial refused  