A master is never liable when his servant acts beyond the limits of his authority, whether that authority be express or implied. So in a case where a servant paid the butcher's bill every week for some considerable time and then, instead of continuing the payments, obtained credit and pocketed the money, the master was not liable, nor was he held liable for extra goods supplied to his servant by a tradesman to whom he was in the habit of paying ready money for a stated quantity. A master is not liable if a servant without his knowledge employs a tradesman whom the master has never employed before. A master may make himself liable for a contract made by his servant by ratifying it, that is, by adopting it in its entirety. The use of goods obtained by his servant does not necessarily render the master liable for their payment, but is strong evidence on which to presume express or implied authority.
A servant living in his master's house may be guilty of burglary by opening a door inside the house with the intention of robbing his master, or by letting in some one from the outside with a similar intention, or by letting out some one who has been robbing the house.
The offence of burglary is defined as the breaking and entering the dwelling-house of another in the night-time-i.e., between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., with the intention to steal. To both "breaking" and "entering" a highly technical meaning is attached; breaking does not necessarily mean the breaking of a door or of a window; the raising of a window sash, or of a trap-door, unlocking an outer or an inner door, picking a lock, cutting the glass out of a window are covered by the term breaking; but not entering by an open door or window, or the raising of a window sash which has been left partly open.
The least degree of entry with the hand, or any part of the body, or with any instrument held in the hand constitutes a burglarious entry, as, for example, the thrusting of a hand through a window after breaking it, or of a pistol with intent to kill or demand money. So, too, an entry down a chimney; but not through an open skylight in the roof. These distinctions, however, appeal more to the lawyer than to the lay reader, for where there is not sufficient legal proof of entry the prisoner may be convicted of an attempt at burglary.