Norwich bulletin., 1917-08-22

and Blackmar); and George Darling, who up to this day had worked under contract, had on this particular day started in to work for Carpenter by the day on the wood lot. As stated above this was the first day that the decedent had been employed by Car penter. There was also employed in the house a servant girl, employed by and paid by Carpenters mother with whom he lived, his mother being the housekeeper and having full charge of the household arrangements and pay ing all the bills incidental thereto Gin cluding the wages of the servant girl, and it appears that Carpenter and his mother made final settlement at the end of the year. Under these circum- stances the servant girl could in no way be considered an employe of Car penter.
 So that in considering the number of employees. the only question up for consideration would be the number of men actually employed by Carpenter upon this particular day and of the five men employed one was unques- tionably a regular farm employe, two were regularly employed in the wood lot, and the other two men George Darling and BlaCkmar) could be con- sidered only in the light of casual em- ployees, as the former had been work ing under contract up to this time, and the latter had previously been a reg ular employee of Sampson and was a
 this time just employed by Carpenter
 for the day and would have undoubt- edly returned to his employment with
 Sampson had this accident not oc-
 cured.
 If the total number of employees on
 the farm and on the timber lot were
 combined in arriving at the total num-
 Der of employees on the day of the
 accident, it was the only day upon
 which Carpenter had five employees.
 but the only men who could be con
 sidered as regular employees were
 Wells. Marcy and Albert 1T. Darling
 and the other two men George Darl-
 ing and Blackmar) were men whose employment was of a temporary ma, ture and who were for the first time
 employed by Carpenter, and in my opinion their employment was of a casual nature, and they were employ
 ed otherwise than for the purposes of the employers trade or business, as his business was that of farming.
 Carpenters Private Business.
 All this reasoning Is on the assump- ton of the claim being correct, which the facts do not prove, that Carpen- ters men were his direct employees Even though BIackmar were not to be considered as a casual employee, I am of the opinion that Carpenter could not be considered as having the re- quisite number of employees to bring him under the act, because he was en- gagged in a dual capacity at the time this injury to Blacl1mar occurred His private business was that of conduct ing a farm. and he would be respon- sible for such employees were en- gagged in that business provided they reached the required number to bring him and them within the provisions of the act. At the same time he was also engaged in settling estate and the men who were employed in that enterprise, under his agency would look to the estate as their employer. and not to him personally. If an award were to be made in this in stance and Blackmar were found to be a regular employee at the time of his injury, he would necessarily be found to be employee of the estate of which Carpenter is the administra- tor, and not of Carpenter an indf- Vidual employer, and the award would have to be chargeable to the estate which Carpenter was settling.
 The attorney for respondent Car penter claims that the decedent's in jury was caused by his wilful and se- rioUs misconduct in disobeying an or