Norwich bulletin., 1918-01-12
BOY UNDERGOES
 TEN OPERATIONS
(Continued lFrorasPage Eight.)

machine can hardly be looked upon as two separate lines Of work, when we think Of him just short while bAfore leaving the \doubler to go on to the cans, and the Bibeault boy going on to the doubler machine almost immedi- ately and having some trouble with it we could hardly think that it would be reasonable for Bibeault not to call upon LeDuc to help him put the belt on again, when LeDuc had been in full charge of it and running it so short time before. To say that Le- Due was not running this particular machine and had absolutely no busi- ness around it would not be strictly correct when the facts showed that he had hardly left it and might be called back to it almost any minute to again operate it. a
 The situation as it appears to me was simply this: That he was tempo rarily taken off Of the deublers, how l long he would remain off from them was not shown, but from the fact that 1 he was off of the machine only very | few minutes and had been put off of ! it before, and then put back again these facts would lead one to believe that he would unquestionably be put 1 back on to it again, and the fact is 1 that these boys had been changed back and forth quite frequently, as shown by the testimony.
 Employment Was Interchangeable. The wofk of operating a doubler machine is not, of course, necessarily dependent upon running set of cards, So far as the machinery itself is concerned, but the employment of these two boys was Interchangeable, and it is proven by the testimony that these two boys were in the habit of helping each other put the belt on the machine, and that this special machine had given considerable trouble with :; the belt slipping off, and this fact was 1 known. to- the employer, and both the 1 overseer and the f1xer admitted it.
 LeDuc was injured while on duty 1 and during his working hours and the accident happened when the claimant was at place where it might be req i sonable to expect him to be. Ho had been there a short time before and might be sent there at any time in the i future. He was doing nothing to serve his own ends especially but rather to ! get the machine working again for the 1 benefit of the employer, as was ad- i mitted by both Flagg and McCann, but it was undoubtedly negligence on claimants part to attempt to replace the belt in the manner undertaken by him, but he had often done it before 1. with Bibeault's help and succeeded in + getting the machine running without assistance from the fixer, but negli- gence on the part of the employe, of course, is of no consideration under the workmens compensation act.
 It was more Of an error of judgment on the part of the boy who asksd the oJ. I.., error of judgment on the part of the boy who assisted and who received such a serious injury, than case oi wilful disregard for rules of the com pany, which rules it does not appear had been very vigorously enforced. The only gain which would accrue to any one from the performance of the worf which resulted in this serious injury was accruing to the employer. If the work of replacing belts was expected to be done by no one but the fixer
 then it would be fair to presume tha the .fixer should be where he coult easily be found by an employe, bu
 there is nothing to show that thu
 youthful fixer who was on the job tha
 night was where he could be foun'
 with a reasonable effort on the part o
 the employe, nor was he in sufficient,
 close touch with the work which h. was expected to oversee SO that in cas these boys were attempting to d
 something contrary to rule that the
 might be stopped and prevented fror receiving serious injury; so that lac
 of proper supervision might almost b ! as justly claimed cause for the in jury as poor judgment on the part C
 the boys in the present case.
 No Notices Posted.
 Both the overseer Flagg and th
 fixer MeCann admitted that to the '2 knowledge there were no notices post Led in the mill to the effect that en ployes should not replace belts, an
 theNnalso admitted as before state
 that the boys had done these thing
 before, and that such things are dor
 in all mills, and they also admittf
 that On this occasion the boy had I & intention of < injuring himself, ar whatever value accrued to anybot would accrue te the employer, eitll'
 in speeding up the work. or in eco1
 omy of time saved by the employ, doing the work themselves instead
 spending considerable time in looki1
 for fixer who was not on the flo
 and who was not easily accessible R the~t time, and the fixer stated that
 half hour before the. accident he VI
 called to replace the belt on u
 doubler machine next to the one { # which LeDuc was injured.
 The testimony of rBibeauIt shou
 consider practically substantiated tn
 of 'LeDuc, and while it was of a cha
 acter which at times appeared lit
 Econfusing and like "a witness wi
 N.