Norwich bulletin., 1917-08-22
for respondent Carpenter are as fol-

for respondent Carpenter are as fol- lows:
 Q That the decedent was an em ploye of respondent Sampson loaned to respondent Carpenter.
 CD That the decedents' injury was caused by his wiIful and serious mis- conduct
 C3) That he Carpenter is an em- ployer having regularly less than five employees.
 The claim made by that attorney for respondent Sampson is that Blackmar was not in the employ or under the control of MT. Sampson on the date of June 30th, and that he was not on the payroll of MT Sampson.
 A memorandum of decision Is at tached and made a. part of the finding and award. For the reasons set forth in the memorandum 1t is found:
 That the claim for compensation must be dismissed on the ground that BIackmar was not in his employ on the day of his injury.
 That the claim against Carpenter for compensation is hereby dismissed osl the ground that the employment of this occasion, and he was employed otherwise than for the purposes of the employers trade or business; also on the ground that on the day of the in jury Carpenter had in his employ reg ularly less than five employees.
 Not a Lun,bernan.
 Carpenters business on this occa- sion was simply. to clear off the wood lot and have it turned into money to settle the estate. Had he been en- gagged in getting out wood for the household, or had his business been that of 8 lumberman, it would place a different aspect on the case. Clearly he could not be Classed as a lumber man because his work in the lum Der business was simply confined to this particular wood lot. His business was that Of farming and not numbering. He was not even on this occasion gettin g the timber off of the land for the sake of improving the land. It was simply a question of clearing off the wood lot to turn 1t into money to settle his wifes estate of which he was the ad- n1inistratOr
 From the evidence it is found that for about a year prior to June 30 1917, the decedent had been regularly employed by Sampson and that Samp- son had been obliged to shut down his saw mill on June 29th because of shortage of logs, so that on June 30th, 1917, Cthe day of the acciden) Samp- but did have one employee on his farm
 On the night of June 29th the dece- dent arranged with Carpenter to work in the wood lot for him on the following day, June 30th. and he did so, and while employed met with fatal injury. The decedent was one whose employment, therefore, was of a casual nature, and who was em- ployed otherwise than for the pur- poses of the employers trade or bus mess. The decedent was really en- ployed by Sampson with the single ex- cept1on of this one day, June 30tn up on which day the fatal injury was re- celVed, and the empIoynsce< Of the decedent would have ceased after that day presumably, Carpenter testified that the only day they had worked since the accident was on July 7th.
 MT. Carpenter Testifies.
 AS to the number Of men in Car penters employ on this particular day, June 30th. Carpenter testified that he had working for him the following men: Louis E. Wells, George Darling, Albert H. Darling, Earl NJ. Marcy, and Burchard F. BIackmar (the decedent) or these five men one was regularly engaged in farm work (Albert Darl- 1ng), and three were working on the trees of his wife's estate (Marcy, Wells