In Brown v. Croft (1833), 6 Car. & P. 174 N., Lord Tenterton, C.J., ruled that if a servant habitually embezzled his master’s property the amount embezzled is wholly immaterial; and, although the arrear of wages sought to be recovered may exceed the amount embezzled, the servant is not entitled to anything, shewing, I think, that damages for the embezzlement are not to be set off against the wages that would otherwise be due, but that no wages were due at all, on account of the breach of contract by the servant.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.