an ingot. He did so and while so engaged sustained a fracture of the left tibia.

His injury was diagnosed by the company's physician as a sprain. On the sixth day after the accident the claimant consulted a physician of his own choice who discovered the fracture and had an X-ray picture taken which proved that his diagnosis was correct.

Discussion.

The contention of the defense in this case is that the claimant, Sam D'Agato, an Italian lad, aged 18 years, was not engaged in the work expressly laid out for him at the time of the accident, and the evidence clearly shows that he really was doing a class of work which he was not required to do and which he was not physically able to do successfully. However, he claims that when employed in another section of the same mill, a fellow employe had asked him to assist in some work that was not his own and his boss had said that it was all right as it was for the same company. There is no testimony to show that the claimant was ever forbidden to help dump ingots. The claimant seems to be a truthful lad and made many admissions that denoted that he was negligent in undertaking to assist in executing a class of work which he knew that he was not large enough to do successfully. This neglect of course would not bar him from compensation. In attempting this dangerous task he was negligent as to his own safety in his zealousness to further the interests of his employer. The case is a parallel to that of Russell Reinhard vs. Egypt Silk Mill, Department Reports, Vol. II, page 2874. In this instance, as in the silk mill case, there is not evidence to show that there was any fooling being carried on at the time of the accident.

"Another question for discussion is whether the claimant. was justified in securing a physician other than the one offered by the defendant company. The testimony of the company's physician is to the effect that he examined the claimant on the afternoon of the accident the day following and on the fourth day following, when the swelling in the injured leg had gone

down, but on none of these occasions did he locate a fracture. The claimant testifies, and his testimony is not denied, that on the occasion of the last visit of the company's physician the latter told him that he could return to work in three days' time. He testifies that a week after the accident he called a physician of his own choice, who told him immediately that his leg was broken and this fact being borne out by an X-ray picture, showing the fracture, is sufficient to convince your Referee that the services offered by the employer in this instance could hardly be termed reasonable, and that the claimant had a perfect right to secure a physician of his own choice. He should be re-imbursed for sums that he personally expended during the first fourteen days of disability in a sum not to exceed the amount provided for in the Workmen's Compensatin Act of 1915."

Conclusion and Award.

The claimant is accordingly entitled to expenses for medical attention and to compensation in accordance with law.

MRS. NANCY CATLIN vs. WM. PICKET & COMPANY.

Dependents and dependency-Children--Illegitimate childrenWidow-Validity of marriage.

Referee: L. E. Christley, Dist. No. 8. Hearing at Washington, Pa., Jan. 25, 1917. Claim Petition N. 1839.

The facts sufficiently appear from the following:

Discussion.

"There are two questions involved in this case:

1st. Is John Catlin, one of the claimants, a dependent child within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act of

1915?

2nd.--Was Nancy Catlin, the lawful wife of the deceased, Charles Catlin, alias 'Charles Green' at the time of his death. and now entitled to compensation as a dependent widow?

"As to the first question, the undisputed evidence is that John Catlin, alias John Dixon, is the son of Lucy Dixon, an illegitimate child of Nancy Catlin, the other claimant, and is about six years of age, and has resided with Charles Catlin and Nancy Catlin for about five years, and has been cared for and provided for by them during that period and is still residing with the claimant Nancy Catlin and it is contended by the claimants that Charles Catlin, alias 'Charles Green,' stood 'in loco parentis' to the said child, and consequently is a dependent child within the meaning of the act.

"The defendant takes this position that the mother of John Catlin, being the illegitimate daughter of Nancy Catlin, the claimant, that if the child is held to be a dependent child, by reason of the deceased standing in loco parentis,' it is establishing a precedent supporting immorality. The latter position cannot be sustained in law, whether or not he stands 'in loco parentis' to a child, does not depend on the relationship or the legitimacy of the child, or of the mother of the child, but the sole question to be determined is whether or not Charles Catlin, alias Charles Green, assumed the character and discharged the duties of a parent in his relations to John Catlin, who resided at his home for the five years preceding his death. From the undisputed evidence, we are compelled to find that he did, and that John Catlin was a dependent child within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915.

"As to the second question, it appears from the testimony that Charles Green, sometimes called 'Flux Green' and 'Charles Catlin,' and Nancy Catlin obtained a marriage license from the Clerk of the Orphans' Court of Washington County on January 13th, 1902, and were married by Rev. I. S. Simpson at Washington, Pa., on January 19th, 1902, and that they have lived together as husband and wife until the date of his death.

"It also appears by the testimony that Charles Green had been previously married to a woman by the name of Mary Cain, from whom he separated and that the said Mary Cain had left him several years prior to his marriage with Nancy Catlin, and

has not been heard from since and there is no evdence of her death or having been divorced.

"There was a legal marriage ceremony performed uniting Charles Catlin, alias Charles Green, and Nancy Catlin in marriage, providing, that at the time Charles Catlin did not have a former wife then living.

"Proof of the celebration of a marriage raises a presumption of its validity, and where a person had been twice married, it may be presumed in favor of the second marriage, that at the time thereof the first marriage had been dissolved by divorce or by death of the former spouse.

"The presumption in this case is fortified and supported by the sworn statement made by Charles Catlin when he made an application for a marriage license to marry the claimant in which he said he had been formerly married but that his wife was dead, and by the fact that seventeen or twenty years had transpired since his former wife had been seen or heard from. This presumption could be overcome by proper evidence that the former wife was living and was not divorced at the time the second marriage was consummated.

"In the absence of such evidence in this case, we must find in favor of the legality of the marriage between the claimant. Nancy Catlin and Charles Catlin, alias, Charles Green' and that the claimant Naney Catlin is a dependent widow."

Conclusion and Award.

Compensation is accordingly awarded to Nancy Catlin, the claimant widow, and to John Catlin, to whom the deceased stood in loco parentis.

GEORGE G. SMITH vs. W. E. ANWYLL.

Independent contractor-Employer and employe-House painter.

Referee: Jacob Snyder, Acting in Dist. No. 4. Hearing at Harrisburg, Pa., Feb. 19, 1917. Claim Petition 203.

Facts.

W. E. Anwyll contracted with George G. Smith, a painter by occupation, to paint his house. The claimant was to supply tools and the defendant the materials. The defendant agreed to pay the claimant 30c per hour for each laborer engaged on the work and the claimant in turn employed the laborers and paid them 25c per hour. The claimant informed the defendant that he carried compensation insurance for all the men whom he employed.

On Oct. 23, 1916, the claimant fell from a ladder and injured his left hip and wrist.

Conclusion and Disallowance.

The claimant in this case was an independent contractor and was not an employe of the defendant and he accordingly is not entitled to compensation.

FRANCES MESSER vs. MANUFACTURERS' LIGHT & HEAT CO.

Accident in course of employment-Employe on vacation-Furthering employer's interests.

Referee: L. E. Christley, Dist. No. 8. Hearing at Washington, Pa., Jan. 25, 1917. Claim Petition No. 1799.

Facts.

The deceased husband of the claimant was employed by the defendant as an engineer at the Waynesburg Pumping and Compressing Station. It is the policy of the defendant to have its employes inspect different plants and various kinds of work for the purpose of educating and better fitting themselves for the service of the company. This is frequently done upon the employer's time.