Evening journal., 1922-01-31

~ ~ contended that there was n
general public understanding at the
lime the workmen's compensation
aw was passed. that employers hav-
ng less than five employees, were TO !
be exempted from the act. Yet II Is I
A grave question. whether the lam I
suage. nor to the employers or en-
pioyees in any employment in which I
less than five persons are employed /
indicates any such understanding on /
the part OF the members OF the Cen F,
eral Assembly Thers IL IA familiar
rule tnat. the question is not what
the legislature actually intended TO
do, but what intention has It ex-
pressed?'
I'm the case OF Grampp vs.. Bu;z
delaware Digest. page 40. Corr
missioner Townsend noted that
Section 14i uses the words in any
In which less than FIVE
persons are employed and not the
words in any employment IN which
less than five employees are en-
ployed.'
I'm the case OF King vs.. Shockley.
(now before the Superior Court OF
Sussex county on appeal), Il is noted
in the award made by the Industrial
Accident Board in favor Of the claim
ant, that Section i41 uses the words
in any employment in whi n less
.han i've persons are employed" not
the words in any employment IN
which less than five employees are
employed The primary meaning Of
the word employed is-to make use
of-and only in a secondary sense is
IL used as a synonym of the word
hire The Legislative intent is TO
exclude from the operation of said
act, employers and employees in any
employment in which use is made
OF the services OF less than five per-
sons"
Employers subject to the provi-
sions Of the Delaware Workmen's
Compensation law, are defined as
every person. firm, association and
corporation having in his or its ser
vice. any employe under any con-
tract Of hire for a valuable consider
alton. but not including any person
whose employment is casual, and
not in the regular course OF the
trade. business. profession or occu-
patton OF the employer, and not in
cluding persons to whom articles or
materials are given out TO be made
up, cleaned. washed, altered. orna-
mented. finished or repaired. or
adapted for sale In the workers own
home, or on other premises. not
within the control or management
A r.Ir
ers OF farm labor and domestic ser
wants; employers OF employees in
jured or killed while engaged in in
terstate or foraign commerce and
employers in any employment in
which less than 1--WE persons are em-
ployed.
after carefully Weighing all the
testimony presented in this case. the
board has reached and states as its
conclusions OF fact the following:
but, in reflection. would state that II
sub-contracts can be so made and the
work under such contracts so ar
ranged. as to exempt those having
responsibility for compensation liza.
bility where FIVE or SIX persons are
/ employed. it would be a very easl
matter to make arrangements which
would exempt those having such re-
sponsibility where fifty or sixty per
sons are employed and a remedia
piece Of legislation enacted afte
most careful consideration would b
gone for naught
Conslusions OF Fact.
Il. on August 25. 1921, Anthon
Irons. claimant, sustained a per
sonal injury by accident arisin
out Of and in the course OF the-em
ployment, OF making repairs TO
dwelling house in Wilmington, whicl
resulted in total DISABILITY.
"2. In the said employment, An
thony Irons. claimant-employe. wa
in the service Of 1. x. Kreshtool, un
der a contract OF hire for a calcuabl
consideration. and such employment
was not casual and was in the regu
lar course OF the trade or business O
: the said I. X. Kreshtool.
b 80. In the instant case, I.
Kreshtool, defendant-employer, wa
: not such an employer as is subjeC
, TO. The Delaware Workmen's Com
pensation Law of 1917 as amended
, in that the continity OF the employ
] ment OF the persons engaged in th
b repair Of the dwelling houses owne
! By the said I. X. Kreshtool, on on
Z OF which Anthony Irons was emplo,
I ed at the time of his injury, was nj
Z sufficient TO bring FIVE persons will
a in the scope Of said employment.
Rulings Law.
J. Il. In accordance with the pre-
4 visions OF 3193 w Sec. i4i. the On
ployment OF Anthony Irons, claim
n ant by I. X. Kreshtool, employe
$ al the time, on August 25, 1921, dot
;, not come within the purview
$ sThe Delaware workmen's Compei
J., sation Law Of 1917 as amended.
1T is therefore awarded and az
e Judged by the Industrial Accidei
, Board OF the State OF Delaware IN
r 31st day Of January, A. ID. lsz2, IN
b the claim of Anthony. Irons for pa
q ment OF compensation for person
e injury. sustained by accident VIII
r in the employ OF /. X. Kreshtool
August 25, 1921. be disallowed ar
{ the petition for said claim is herel
dismissed"
only one case was heard by Il
{. Industrial Accident Board at
u meeting today. l.. c. Harman' VINO
= husband was killed at Farnhurst
G December, 1920, petitioned Il
e hoard 10 commute the compensate
u received from the Pennsylvan
Railroad Company to a lump SUI
= Mrs. Harman has been receivli
. $3.50 a week compensation una