Hi

Two women were talking. One of them tells another about a certain woman who disappeared from the village on Sunday.

What a way to leave Mr Tharkell, who’d kind of made

a job for her. Ah, but even if she owed him a month’s

notice, she had the right of it there, for he said himself that

she had a month’s wages due on the Monday. Right

bothered, he was.He’d always had a soft spot for her, ever

since she ’d nursed him through the jaundice. Rung up the

police, he had. Go on, not the police. Yes, the police; said

she was missing. Know what the police said?Unless she’d

committed some crime, it was no affair of theirs; she was

a grown woman, free to come and go as she wished. Did

Mr Tharkell have any reason to think anything had

happened to her, like murder or such? Then there was

nothing they could do.

Does it mean she had the right to leave without notice because he paid her on Mondays? I don't understand it.

He had rung up the police. "Go on, not the police".

It sounds like the woman who was reporting this to another woman didn't like he called the police, but I'm not sure?
1 2
Newguestshe had the right of it there
I take "right" here to mean "She was right/correct."
"She had it right." "She was in the right." "She was on the right side of the argument."

The usage is old fashioned.

I don't take it as "She had a/the right to X."
NewguestGo on, not the police
This is a little bit old fashioned too. It's like saying "You've gotta be kidding!"

It's not that she doesn't like the idea. She's very surprised by it.

People also used to say, "Go on with ya!" (same meaning)
Hi

So it says that she was right because her employer said himself that she was supposed to get her month's wages on the Monday (she disappeared on Sunday)? Does it make sense? I'm not sure I see a correlation bewteen her being right and him saying that she was supposed to get wages on the Monday?

So the woman who is reporting this says that he called the police and then she herself adds "You've got to be kidding, not the police"?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
NewguestIt sounds like the woman who was reporting this to another woman didn't like he called the police, but I'm not sure?
The style here is a form of dialogue, but there's no indication of who is saying what. The reader is left to assume.
Perhaps prior context would help us to form a sense of who is saying what.

I haven't read the part about one woman reporting it to another. I suspect "Go on, not the police!" was said by the second woman.

This is a kind of musing style, almost like the narrator thinking to himself.

I think a native speaker, when he gets used to the style of this particular narrative, would get a sense of who is speaking, even though it's all run together.
I've just noticed that this whole part was said by the narrator. Neither of the women said that.
Yes, this is true. But he's telling the story by occasionally "speaking" the parts of the characters, if I'm not mistaken.

A good storyteller can even do this orally, without any "He said/she said."
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
NewguestSo it says that she was right because her employer said himself that she was supposed to get her month's wages on the Monday (she disappeared on Sunday)? Does it make sense? I'm not sure I see a correlation bewteen her being right and him saying that she was supposed to get wages on the Monday?
They owed each other money.
We have to assume that her rent was current - that is, she was not in arrears.

What she owed him was the rent for the following month, throughout which she would already have vacated the premises.

Why was she obligated to pay this money? Because the terms of the rental provided that she must give a month's notice before vacating. (That's a standard arrangement.)

Yes, she left the day before he was to pay her what he owed her, but on Monday, they would be square.

So it was okay (right) for her to leave without giving him a month's rent, because he would have "her" money in hand on the following day.
Hmm, that's strange because she had her own home in the same village where she worked for that guy. So it would be strange if she had to pay him a rent.

Some time later it says:

But there was the house, full of furniture and all the
little gadgets poor Wesley had made. And clothes! Mr
Tharkell said that when he drove her to the station, she ’d
had just a small suitcase and Sydney had a holdall, just
what people would take going for the weekend. Sydney
wore his best suit and carried his mackintosh; Mrs Baines
had the black coat and skirt she’d had forWesley’s funeral
and an overcoat.
What about the rent? Due, like everybody else ’s,
on September the thirtieth. After that, would the
Canon take possession and let Dick Hayer and Clara Woodley have it? Time they got married. . . .

By the way: Wesley was that woman husband. She herself is called Mrs Baines. Her son was Sydney.
Without reading the book, I have to assume that "her own home in the same village" was in fact the rental in question, and that she abandoned her furniture and "poor Wesley's" gadgets.

Apparently her employer was also her landlord. I guess she worked for him in his house, but she "lived" in the rental.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more