Workman employing assistant or substitute meaning of the British Act and compensation was refused. Ryan v. County Council of Tipperary (S. R.) (1912), 48 Ir. L. T. 69; 5 B. W. C. C. 578. Where the plaintiff was employed by the defendant to haul a boiler and the plaintiff was to furnish team, wagon and assistants, it was held that the plaintiff was an independent contractor, even though he was obeying the defendant's instructions while unloading. (E. L.) See v. Leidecker, 152 Ky. 724; 154 S. W. Rep. 10. A teamster owning his own horses and wagon was engaged in hauling dirt. He was under the order of the employer's foreman and was required to conform to regulations established by the employer. He did no other work with his team and wagon during the time he was employed by the defendant. It was held that the teamster was an employé and not a contractor. Rider v. C. H. Little Co., Michigan Industrial Accident Board, April, 1913. The plaintiff hired a coach at a public stand near a hotel, and directed the driver where to go. While crossing a railroad track the carriage was struck by the engine of a passing train, and the plaintiff was injured. It was held that the relationship of master and servant did not exist between the plaintiff and the driver of the coach. (E. L.) Little v. Hackett, 116 U. S. 379. 7. Workman employing assistant or substitute. Where a master allows a servant to employ another to assist him the relationship of master and servant is created, although the person so employed may be compensated and be under the immediate control of the person employing him. (E. L.) Paducah Box & Basket Co. v. Parker, 136 S. W. Rep. 1012; 143 Ky. 607. In another instance the plaintiff was employed frequently during a year preceding his injury by a foreman of the defendant railway company, and paid a part of the time by the foreman personally and part of the time was placed on the pay-roll. It was held that he was in the employ of the railroad company so that was Workman employing assistant or substitute it owed to him the duty of a master. (E. L.) Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Timmons, 100 S. W. Rep. 337; 30 Ky. Law Rep. 1155. An employé of the defendant railway company having charge of its pumping station and water tank, informed the superintendent that he had to go away on business and would leave his fourteen year old son in charge, and received the superintendent's permission so to do. It was held that the son was an employé of the company. (E. L.) Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Slaughter, 45 So. Rep. 873; 92 Miss. 289. Where the plaintiff, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant's superintendent in general charge of his factory, was employed by an engineer as a substitute during a temporary absence, it was held that the defendant was charged with knowledge of such employment, and with the same duty toward the plaintiff as to the other employés. (E. L.) Aga v. Harbach, 117 N. W. Rep. 669; 140 Iowa, 606. An injured man was engaged by another workman. The employer of such workman only authorized him to employ a boy. It was held that the employment of an old man, when the employer only authorized the engagement of a boy, prevented the applicant being held to be a workman under a contract of service with the respondent. M'Clelland v. Todd (1909), 43 Irish L. T. J. 75; 2 B. W. C. C. 472. Where an employé engages an infant who, by reason of his age and inexperience, is unable to avoid the danger in which he is placed by the employé who engages him, the employer may be liable even though the employé who engaged the infant had no authority to employ hands. (E. L.) Wells v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 138 S. W. Rep. 278; 144 Ky. 438. Where a stranger in a cotton mill, by permission of the employer, is requested by a section boss to procure oil from an oil pan, it makes the stranger an employé. (E. L.) Tucker v. Buffalo Cotton Mills, 57 S. E. Rep. 626; 76 S. C. 539. A laborer hired merely to take care of a race horse was held to have no authority to employ a boy to ride it to water Apprentice serving without pay so as to render the master liable to the boy for injuries he received while so doing. (E. L.) Corrigan v. Hunter, 122 S. W. Rep. 131; 139 Ky. 315; rehearing denied, 130 S. W. Rep. 798; 000 Ky. 000. 8. Conductor on railroad employing assistants; emergency. A conductor is not authorized to employ additional help when he has a full train crew and no emergency arises, and the railroad company is not liable where one employed by the conductor under such circumstances is injured while performing the work. (E. L.) Clarke v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 111 S. W. Rep. 344; 33 Ky. Law Rep. 797; (E. L.) Vassor v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 54 S. E. Rep. 849; 142 N. C. 68; 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 950; (E. L.) Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Stansberry, 53 So. Rep. 389; 97 Miss. 831. In the last-mentioned case the conductor, in the absence of any emergency, and without authority, agreed to permit the plaintiff's minor son to ride on a freight train in consideration of his services in assisting the train crew in loading and unloading freight, and it was held that the railroad company was not liable to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by the son resulting from his own negligence and unskilfulness. Evidence that plaintiff, an employé of defendant railroad as baggageman at a station, on several occasions voluntarily assisted in handling baggage on special excursion trains, but did not do the work on the order of the conductors in charge of the trains, nor with their knowledge, and was at no time in the uniform of a train baggageman, is insufficient to create an implication of defendant's acceptance of plaintiff's services as train baggageman, so as to render defendant liable for injuries received by plaintiff while acting in that capacity. (E. L.) Wagen v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 82 N. W. Rep. 1107; 80 Minn. 92. 9. Apprentice serving without pay. A person who, under authority from a railroad company, Student of manual training school employed on a holiday goes upon an engine to learn the duties of a fireman, performing the services to gain the experience, is a servant of the company, although he receives no pay during his apprenticeship. (E. L.) Smith v. Western & A. R. Co., 67 S. E. Rep. 818; 134 Georgia, 216. 10. Boarding mistress of construction crew. One employed by the foreman of a bridge crew of a railroad company to board the men in cars furnished by the company under an agreement providing that each man should pay a specified sum per day for board, and, in case any of the men failed to pay, the company would deduct the same from their wages, is, in a sense, in the service of the company, in that what she was employed to do and was doing was for the convenience of the employés of the company. (E. L.) Tinkle v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 110 S. W. Rep. 1086; 212 Mo. 445. Where the defendant railroad company employed the plaintiff's husband as manager for its outfit cars, requiring him to cook or else to furnish a cook, and permitted plaintiff to accompany him and cook for the outfit employés, it was held that the relation of master and servant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, although the plaintiff was not entitled to any pay for her services from the defendant. (E. L.) Pugmire v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 92 Pac. Rep. 762; 33 Utah, 27; 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 565. 11. Student of manual training school employed on holiday. The applicant who was a boy of fifteen, injured his left hand on a circular saw in the manual training department of a high school. He was a student but was employed on a holiday by the principal, under authorization of the School Board. His wages were fourteen cents an hour. Compensation in the sum of $1,000 was awarded by agreement of the parties and order of the Board. Schmitz v. City of Appleton, Wisconsin Industrial Accident Board, September 30, 1912. Persons employed by charitable organization out of charity 12. Persons employed by charitable organization out of charity. A charitable institution which had instituted a labor yard, and which, in return for work done therein by persons out of employment, gave such persons their board and lodging and occasionally trifling sums of money, was held not to be employers as to one of the persons who had performed work under the rules stated, as the applicant had not proved a contract of service between himself and the institution. The question whether or not the institution carried on a trade or business was left open. Burns v. Manchester & Salford Wesleyan Mission (1908), 1 B. W. C. C. 305. A distress committee, which provides temporary work for an applicant, is an employer within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act and a person injured is entitled to compensation. Gilroy v. Mackie and Others (Leith Distress Committee) (1909), 46 Scotch L. R. 325; 2 B. W. C. C. 269. The Central Body under the Unemployed Workmen Act of 1905, are "employers" within the meaning of the Compensation Act, and when a workman employed by them is killed, his widow is entitled to compensation. Porton v. Central (Unemployed) Body for London (1908), 100 L. T. 102; 2 B. W. C. C. 296. A blind man was injured while employed in the industrial department of an institute for the blind. This department was supported partly by charitable contributions received by the institute. The institute gave the man, in respect of his services, board, lodging, and 5 shillings a month, and received on his account charitable and parochial assistance which came to a few pounds less than the amount it expended on him. It was held that the man was a workman. MacGillivray v. The Northern Counties Institute for the Blind (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 811; 4 B. W. C. C. 429. A dispensary medical officer employed by Guardians of the Poor was held not to be a workman, as there was no contract of service between him and an employer within |