صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

12

was

a

Members of the crew of a fishing ves- to exclude him from the benefits of the sel who are paid by a share of the profits compensation act.1 Nor is a workman or gross earnings of the vessel are ex- disentitled to compensation merely bepressly excluded from the act. See ante, cause he contracted to do the work at 105.

a lump sum, and not by the day.13

The question who are independent 2. Independent contractors. contractors has been passed upon in a

number of cases involving the compenIt has been held that the word "work- sation act, which are cited below, but man” does not embrace employees who it should be noted that the act does not occupy the position of independent con- attempt to define the term "independent tractors. 11

But the mere fact that a contractors," and these cases are govman works by the piece is not sufficient erned by general principles. 14 gear and repairs, and the master was to "workman.” Taylor v. Burnham [1910] S. hire the crew and pay all other expenses, C. 705, 47 Scot. L. R. 643, 3 B. W. C. C. 569. and go to what port he liked, and was to A finding that the injured man be paid by taking two thirds of the gross workman is justifiable where he was one of freight. Boon v. Quance (1910) 102 L. T. a squad of mechanics who were paid by the N. S. (Eng.) 443, 3 B. W. C. C. 106.

piece, for work or a vessel under construcHughes v. Postlethwaite (1910) 4 B. W. tion, but were bound to work continuously C. C. (Eng.) 105, was decided upon the au- all the working hours recognized in the thority of Boon v. Quance, to which it was yard, were supervised by the foreman of the similar in facts.

employer, and were subject to printed rules The master of a barge, who receives one and regulations “to be observed by the half the net earnings as his wages, out of workmen in the employment” of shipbuildwhich he has to pay the mate, is not a ers. M'Cready v. Dunlop (1900) 2 Sc. Sess. workman. Cole v. Shrubsall (1912] W. C. Cas. 5th series, 1027, 37 Scot. L. R. 779, 8 Rep. (Eng.) 226, 5 B. W. C. C. 337.

Scot. L. T. 91. The owners of a vessel are not estopped A finding that the injured person was a from denying that a mate was employed by "workman" is justifiable, where he was emthem by the fact that compensation was ployed in a quarry under an agreement that given him for several months, which was he should be paid so much for every ton paid through an insurance company with he got out, and the tools were found for which the owners had insured both the cap- him, and he used to hire and discharge the tain and the mate, it being shown that the men who worked under him. Evans v. mate was engaged by the captain, and paid Penwyllt Dinas Silica Brick Co. (1901) 18 by him on the sharing system out of the Times L. R. (Eng.) 58. profits of the voyage. Standing v. East A stone breaker engaged by a contractor wood (1912] W. Č. Rep. (Eng.) 200, 106 L. to break stones for road metal at a certain T. N. S. 477, 5 B. W. C. C. 268.

rate per cubic yard of metal broken, and There can be no compensation recovered subject to the orders of the contractor, and for the death of a mate who was to receive to dismissal by him, is a "workman.” Doha share of the freight of the voyage. Hoare arty v. Boyd (1909) S. C. 87, 46 Scot. L. R. v. The Cecil Rhodes (1911) 5 B. W. C. C. 71. (Eng.) 49.

A miner who is paid so much per ton of The decisions in these cases may also coal extracted, and extra for timbering, be referred to the principle that compensa- and who supplies his own tools and works tion is not recoverable where a "contract of in a room alone, as he can earn more by so service” does not exist between the work- doing than by sharing the room with anothman and the alleged employer. See ante, er miner, is not an independent contractor. 114.

Cargeme v. Alberta Coal & Min. Co. (1912) 11 Simmons v. Faulds (1901) 17 Times L. R. 6 D. L. R. (Alberta) 231, 7 B. W. C. C. 1020, (Eng.) 352, 65 J. P. 371; Vamplew v. Park 22 West. L. Rep. (Can.) 68. gate Iron & Steel Co. [1903] 1 K. B. (Eng.)

13 Ibid. 851, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 575, 67 J. P. 417, 14 A man who enters into an agreement 51 Week. Rep. 691, 88 L. T. N. S. 756, 19 with a mining company to carry out cerTimes L. R. 421; M'Gregor v. Dansken tain specified operations is an independent (1899) 1 Sc. Sess. Cas. 5th series, 536, 36 contractor, and not a workman, where the Scot. L. R. 393, 6 Scot. L. T. 308.

mining company exercises no control over 12A workman whose trade was the fixing the man apart from the agreement. Reid of enamel letters to windows, and who had v. Leitch Collieries (1912) 7 B. W. C. C. been for a year in the habit of calling on a (Alberta) 1017. firm who made and dealt in enamel letters, An independent contract by which and of obtaining work from them, being slater undertook to do certain slating work paid by the piece, defraying his own travel for the employer is not changed into a coning expenses, and under no obligation to tract of employment by the fact that after undertake any particular job, and who was four days of work, the employer, being at liberty to accept, and occasionally ac dissatisfied with the slow progress that was cepted, work from other employers, is a made, sent another slater with a laborer to

а

man

"push the work on.” Barnes v. Evans, when required, to drag logs from one place (1914) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 113, 7 to another, for which he is paid at a cerB. W. C. C. 24.

tain rate per day, and whose share of the A laborer who, with several others, enters work is confined to leading the horse, which into a contract with a quarryman to remove he might do by means of a substitute, there the surface earth from a new part of the being no contract that he should perform quarry, at so much per cubic yard, and the work personally, is not a “workman." who exercises full control over the work, Chisholm v. Walker (1909) S. C. 31, 46 and is not tied down to hours, is an inde- Scot. L. R. 24, 2 B. W. C. C. 261. Paterson pendent contractor; and his wife is not v. Lockhart (Scot.) infra, in which the entitled to compensation for injuries which was bound to do the work himself, he received, resulting in his death. Hayden was distinguished. v. Dick (1902) 5 Sc. Sess. Cas. 5th series, A cartman who carted stones for a coun150, 40 Scot. L. R. 95, 10 Scot. L. T. 380. ty council, doing the work when he wished,

A man who agreed to undertake the trap- and subject to no control by the council ping of rabbits on certain premises at so except that their surveyor told him where much a couple, the employer to supply the the stones were to be placed, and who was gear and also to allow the use of a cottage paid by the day for the work he did, may for the work, is not a workman, but an in- be found not to be a workman within the dependent contractor. M'Connell v. Gal. act. Ryan v. Tipperary (1912) 46 Ir. Law braith (1913) 48 Ir. Law Times, 30 W. C. Times, 69, 5 B. W. C. C. 578. & Ins. Rep. 92, 7 B. W. C. C. 968.

But the finding that the applicant for A man who enters into a written con

compensation was a workman is supported tract with harbor commissioners ”for sup- road overseer to cart stone, that he fur

by evidence that he was employed by a plying a yawl and crew of four men” for nished his own cart and horse, and was use at a certain pilot station and lighthouse paid so much per day, and that he might is an independent contractor, and not a do work for other people on any particular workman. Walsh v. Waterford Harbour Comrs. (1914) W. C. & Ins. Rep. 16, 47 Ir. day, “provided that he was not badly want

O'Donnell v. Clare County Council L. Times 263, 7 B. W. C. C. 960.

(1913) W. C. & Ins. Rep. 273, 47 Ir. Law Where a contractor had a contract from Times 41, 6 B. W. C. C. 457. a district council to erect certain laborers'

A plumber called in to make repairs, cottages, and made an agreement with a and who was paid for the time he worked, mason for the latter to do the work, the the owner of the house 'supplying the mate. contractor furnishing the materials, and the rial, indicating where the defect was, and mason agreed to carry out the contract to from time to time, during the course of the the satisfaction of the council's engineer, work, visiting the place to see what prog: and to have the work finished in the time ress had been made, is a servant, and not specified in the contract between the coun.

an independent contractor. McNally v. cil and the contractor, and there was no Fitzgerald (1914) 48 Ir. Law Times 4, stipulation that he was to work continuous- 7 B. w. C. C. 966. ly, the county court judge may find that

Where paper hanger and decorator the mason was a subcontractor, and that agreed to paper a house being erected by the relation between him and the contractor was not that of master and servant, go and work exactly when he liked, and

a builder, and was permitted to come and but that of contractor and subcontractor; I made out a bill on the printed form of the fact that he was to be paid by the the work done by him, and receipted it day not deciding the case. Byrne v. Balt

on payment, and there was evidence at inglass Rural Dist. Council (1911) 45 Ir. the hearing of a claim for compensation L. Times, 206, 5 B. W. C. C. 566.

that the builder had told "all his other A man engaged by a farm bailiff to cut men,” except the paper hanger, not to use down certain trees may be found to be the plank by the breaking of which he an independent contractor, and not a work

was injured, the county court judge may man, where there were four men engaged find that the paper hanger was a workman to do the work, and the work was paid within the meaning of the act. Lewis v. for at so much a tree and so much for Stanbridge (1913) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) extras, and the men cut the tree as and 515, 6 B. w. c. C. 568. when they liked, were not bound to work

The relation of master and servant exists every day unless they saw fit, and the where a man who provided his own horse bailiff made little or no interference with and cart entered into a contract with a the work provided it was done within a dairy society to cart his milk to and from reasonable time, notwithstanding the bail the creamery during a certain period on iff had, on a former occasion, sent a man such dates as it should fix, for which servaway for drunkenness, and on this occasion ice he was to be paid at the rate of oneonce told a man which way to make a tree half penny per gallon. Clark v. Bailie. fall, and, immediately after the injury to Borough Co-op. Agri. & D. Soc. (1913) W. the workman, increased the number of C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 374, as cited in Law workmen from three to four. Curtis v. Reports Current Dig. 1913, col. 772. Plumptre (1913) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) A man engaged to take charge and man195, 6 B. W. C. C. 87.

age a herd of cows at a dairy, who, under The owner of a horse, who contracts, I the contract of employment, is to feed

a

[ocr errors][merged small]

19

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

а

[ocr errors]

16

3. Casualemployees.

surrounded by a high hedge on the land For American cases defining this term, from the latter for injuries received

of a farmer is entitled to compensation see post, 247.

A charwoman who has been employed while engaged in trimming the hedge, for regularly every Friday and every other pay, at the request of the farmer, on his Tuesday for over eighteen months is in complaint that the hedge was so tall as the regular, and not the casual, employ

to shade his garden. ment of the defendants.

15 In a few cases

Under 13, if the employment is not of it has been

a casual nature, it is not necessary to held that window

consider the further question with rewasher who worked only occasionally as such work was necessary was engaged gard to whether or not the workman was in casual employment only.

The work employed otherwise than for the purof cutting down or lopping trees, which is poses of the employer's trade or busidone by a workman incidentally, in con As to what constitutes employment nection with other work, is casual.17 But for the purposes of the employer's a workman employed each season for trade or business," see ante, 96. several weeks or even months at a time to do work in the employer's woods, in

ness. 20

4. Seamen. cutting underwood, trimming trees, etc., As maritime work was not one of the and who was paid by the week, not losing descriptions of employment covered by any time because of rain, is not a casual the act of 1897, it did not affect the relaborer. 18

lation between shipowners and sailors The owner of a small garden which is i “when engaged in their ordinary occupathe herd “according to instructions from work without receiving on each occasion the employers," to manufacture “the milk a special invitation or special permission into goods, as may be desired by the em to do so, his employment was of a casual ployers,” and do various other things, nature. Rennie v. Reid (1908] S. C. (Scot.) "as may be required by the employers," is 1057. a workman within the meaning of the act. The county court judge is justified in Roper v. Freke (1915) 31 Times L. R. finding that the employment is of a casual (Eng.) 507.

nature where the workman, a window cleanA man engaged to quarry, from a quarry i er, cleaned the windows of a private house on an estate, stone blocks for wire fences for the same employer once a month for and farm buildings to meet estate require about four years, when he fell and died ments, in such quantities as the factor as a result, and no definite arrangements should direct, who was paid by the day, had been made in advance as to the regu. and who might employ assistants, to be lar time for the work. Ritchings 1. Bry. paid through him at the same rate, and ant (1913) W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 171, whose tools were supplied partly by him. 6 B. W. C. C. 183. self and partly by the estate, and who was 17 Where a carpenter undertakes a job told where he was to work, but was free of cutting down trees on the property to choose the part of the quarry where the l of a person for whom he has been work. excavation was to be made, -was a servant ing as a carpenter, his employment is or workman in the sense of the act. Pater- casual. M'Carthy v. Norcott (1908) 43 son v. Lockhart (1906) 7 Sc. Sess. Cas. 5th Ir. Law Times, 17. series, 954, 42 Scot. L. R. 24. See Chisholm

The county court judge may find that v. Walker (Scot.) supra.

a jobbing gardener who was employed to 15 Dewhurst v. Mather_[1908] 2 K. B. cut down and lop some trees in the grounds (Eng.) 754, 77 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1077, 99 of a large puvate house, ani wm. ai er L. T. N. S. 568, 24 Times L. R. 819, 52 that work was done, assisted in relaying Sol. Jo. 681.

part of the lawn, and ater the lawn Wa: 16 A man who was sent for to wash tinished was put on to cut and lop some windows whenever they needed it, which more trees, and was paid at so much per was at intervals of about six weeks, there' day, there being nothing said as to how being no agreement between the parties, long he was to be employed, was engaged was in the casual employment only, al- in employment of a casual nature, and was though he had been doing the work for not within the protection of the statute. about two years. Hill v. Begg (1908] 2 Knight_v. Bucknill (1913) W. C. & Ins. K. B. (Eng.) 802, 77 L. J. K. B. N. S. Rep. (Eng.) 175, 57 Sol. Jo. 245, 6 B. W. 1074, 99 L. T. N. S. 104, 24 Times L. R. C. C. 160. 711, 52 Sol. Jo. 581.

18 Smith . Buxton (1915) 84 L. J. K. Where a window cleaner about once a B. N. S. (Eng.) 697, 112 L. T. N. S. 893, wonth went to clean the windows of the W. C. & Ins. Rep. 126, 8 B. W. C. C. 196. house of a medical practitioner, who used 19 Tombs v. Bomford (1912) W. C. Rep. a portion of the house in connection with (Eng.) 229, 106 L. T. N. S. 823, 5 B. W. his professional practice, there being no C. C. 338. formal contract between the parties, and 20 Smith v. Buxton (Eng.) supra. the window cleaner calling and doing the

" 21

23

tion of sailing upon the seas. This sea service, and apprentices in the seadoctrine does not involve the consequence fishing service.” that the mere fact of the accidents hav

5. Remuneration. ing happened in or upon a ship pre- The word “remuneration,” as used in vents the injured workman from claiming the act (ộ 13 and sched. 1, 2 (a) ), compensation under the act. His right means the same as "earnings.” 24 of recovery must be tested with refer

e. Who are dependents." ence to the circumstances attending the

For American decisions defining this accident.22 Under the act of 1897, the

term, see post, 248. seaman on a dock or harbor in a foreign 1. In England and Ireland and in Scotcountry was in the same position in ref

land under the Act of 1906. erence to compensation as if he was at

The word “ dependent' probably sea. But the act of 1906 is express- means, dependent for the ordinary necesly declared (Ø 7) to be applicable to saries of life for a person of that class “masters, seamen, and apprentices in the and position.” 25 The term does not sig

21 Lord Halsbury in Raine V. Jobson, to forfeit the bonus and receive but £16 (1901] A. C. (Eng.) 404, 70 L. J. K. B. per month, and was lost at sea with his N. S. 771, 49 Week. Rep. 705, 85 L. T. ship, since, had he survived, he, under N. S. 141, 17 Times L. R. 627.

the terms of the contract, would have re. A seaman engaged in casting off his ceived only the £16 per month, plus the ship from a quay is doing an ordinary board and accommodation. Williams v seaman's work, and is not within the act | The Maritime [1915] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 137, of 1897. Williams v. Mack (1903; C. C.) 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 633, [1915] W. C. & 116 L. T. Jo. (Eng.) 179, 6 W. C. C. 113. Ins. Rep. 97, 8 B. W. C. C. 267, [1915)

The act of 1897 does not apply to a W. N. 71, 31 Times L. R. 218. Lord Cozens. seaman injured while doing a seaman's Hardy, M. R., said: "It was contended work. Griffiths v. Warren (1904; C. C.) 116 on behalf of the employers, that regard L. T. Jo. (Eng.) 575, 6 W. C. C. 65. ought to be had to the circumstance that,

In an Irish case it was held that an under the prior agreement, the terms of able-bodied seaman, working at the hoist, which were less beneficial to the captain, ing of a ship's boat by means of a crane his average remuneration had exceeded £250, on the quay alongside his ship, is merely and further, that regard ought to be had carrying out the normal duties of a sea- to the fact that the shipowners did not man, and is therefore not engaged in an always enforce against an old servant their employment to which the act applies. rights to a reduction of salary, unless satO'llanlon v. Dundalk & N. Steam Packet | istied that there was real fault on the Co. (1899) 33 Ir. Law Times, 36.

captain's part. It seems to me that such 22 An ordinary laborer employed for the generosity on the part of the owners canpurpose of doing anything that is to be not be taken into account. The question done on a ship lying in a dock is not with is, what was the salary to which he was out the scope of the act. Raine v. Jobson entitled ? To answer this question, the (1901] A. C. (Eng.) 404, 70 L. J. K. B. language of the agreement itself is suffi. N. S. 771, 49 Week. Rep. 705, 85 L. T. cient.” N. S. 141, 17 Times L. R. 627.

25 See Simmons v. White Bros. [1899] 1 Nor is a man working on a dredger, Q. B. (Eng.) 1007, 68 L. J. Q. B. N. S. which went 2 miles out to sea for the 507, 47 Week. Rep. 513, 80 L. T. N. S. purpose of being emptied. Chambers v. 344, 15 Times L. R. 263, and Lord Shand Whitehaven Harbour Comrs. [1899] 2 Q. in Main Colliery Co. v. Davies [1900] A. B. (Eng.) 132, 68 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 740, C. (Eng.) 358, 69 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 755, 47 Week. Rep. 533, 80 L. T. N. S. 586, 83 L. T. N. S. 83, 16 Times L. R. 460, 15 Times L. R. 341.

65 J. P. 20. In the latter case Lords 23 Griffiths y. Warren (Eng.) supra. Halsbury and Davey expressed the opin24 In estimating the remuneration of the ion that the question of dependency was purser on a ship under § 13 of the act, to be decided without respect to the standboth a bonus which he received and the ard of living in the neighborhood or the profit which he made by selling whisky, class to which the family belong; that the are to be taken into consideration. Skailes act sets up no such standard; and that v. Blue Anchor Line [1911] 1 K. B. (Eng.) the actual means of living and expendi360, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 442, 103 L. T. ture need alone be regarded. Lord Shand N. S. 741, 27 Times L. R. 119, 55 Sol. did not agree with this view. Jo. 107, 4 B. W. C. C. 16.

The latter case was followed by French A ship captain is properly held to be a v. Underwood (1903) 19 Times L. R. (Eng.) workman receiving less than £250 a year

416. where he was employed under a contract In Ilowells v. Vivian (1901) 85 L. 7'. by whieh he was to receive his board and N. S. (Eng.) 529, 4 W. C. C. 106, Collins, accommodation, estimated at £45 and 10s. M. R., said: “It seems to me to be diffiper annum, and £20 per month, with a cult to approach the question of depenabonus of £48 if the ship kept free from ency, as a matter of law, without taking all damage and claim, but otherwise was some standard of living as a guide. There

dren.30

unmar

nify a person who merely derived a partially dependent upon a son's wages benefit from the earnings of the injured is a question of fact, and the finding of workinan.26 Similarly it is held there the county judge will not be disturbed may be a “dependency” for the purposes if there is any evidence to support it.31 of the act, although the claimant is able Dependency within the meaning of the to maintain himself and family without act is not to be tested solely by the legal the assistance of the deceased. 27

liability to render support.82 So, the Dependency under the statute is whol- mere fact that a husband is under oblily a question of fact.28 There is no pre- gations to support his wife does not sumption of dependency in the case of a necessarily make the wife a dependwife,29 nor in the case of minor chil- ent.33 And a widow who lived with and

So, whether or not parents are was entirely supported by an must be some standard with regard to [1907] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 422, 76 L. J. K. B. the class of persons with whom the act N. S. 1073, 97 L. T. N. S. 150, 23 Times deals, and their comfortable maintenance." L. R. 584.

26 Simmons v. White (1899) 80 L. T. The House of Lords' decision must also (Eng.) N. S. 344, [1899] 1 Q. B. 1007, 63 be considered as overruling a decision of L. J. Q. B. N. S. 507, 47 Week. Rep. 513, the Irish court of appeal to the effect 15 Times L. R. 263.

that the presumption that the wife is wholly 27 Howells v. Vivian (1901) 18 Times dependent upon her husband is not rebutted L. R. (Eng.) 36, 50 Week. Rep. 163, 85 by proof that, at the time of his death, L. T. N. S. 529, 4 W. C. C. 106. Matthew, he was confined in an asylum as a dargerL. J., said: “The county court judge seems | ous lunatic, and was maintained by the to have laid down a rule of law which asylum authorities. Kelly v. Hopkins excluded from consideration the question [1908] 2 I. R. (Ir.) 84. whether the wages of the deceased were Dependency is a question of fact, and part of the income or means of living of there is no question of any presumption the family because the whole family could of law that a widow is dependent upon be maintained without those wages. It i earnings of her husband at the time of never was intended that the county court i his death. Polled v. Great Northern R. Co. judge should in every case inquire criti. | (1912) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 620. cally into the standard of living, and say 30 Lee v. The Bessie [1912] 1 K. B. (Eng.) whether, with the earnings of the deceased 83, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 114, 105 L. 1. workman, the family was above or below N. S. 659, [1911] W. N. 222, 12 Asp. that standard. I agree that it is not Mar. L. Cas. 89, [1912] W. C. Rep. 58, decisive of the question of dependency that 5 B. W. C. C. 55, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 477, the deceased workman did contribute to approving Briggs v. Mitchell [1911] S. C. the family fund, or, on the other hand, 705, 48 Scot. L. R. 606, 4 B. W. C. C. that the father could support the family 400. without that contribution."

31 Turner v. Miller (1910) 3 B. W. C. ('. 28 Lee v. The Bessie [1912] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 305; Robertson v. Hall Bros. S. S. (Eng.) 83, [1911] W. N. 222, 105 L. T. Co. (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 368. N. S. 659, 5 B. W. C. C. 55, 81 L. J. K. B. The county court judge may treat a N. S. 114, 12 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. 89, Ann. mother as partially rather than wholly Cas. 1913E, 477.

dependent upon the earnings of her son, The widow of a deceased workman may although her sole support was such earn. be found to be partially dependent upon ings, together with the sum of 6 shillings the deceased's earnings, where it appeared a week earned by each of her two daughters. that, at the time of the accident, she was Ford v. Oakdale Colliery Co. (1915) 8 B. disabled and unable to earn anything, al. | W. C. C. (Eng.) 127. though she had formerly earned wages, 32 Dependency is a question of actual and the wages of the deceased were not fact, and that actual fact is not settled suflicient to support them both. Smith v. by a consideration of the legal proposition Cope [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 460, of obligation of either the husband to the 6 B. W. C. C. 569.

wife, or the parent to the child. Dobbies A daughter who kept house for her v. Egypt & L. S. S. Co. [1913] S. C. 364, father, who was the tenant and owned 50 Scot. L. R. 222, [1913] W. C. & Ins. the furniture, may be wholly dependent Rep. 75, 6 B. W. C. C. 348. upon his earnings although she had a longer, See also Lee v. The Bessie [1912] 1 the profit from whom amounted to 4 or 5 K. B. (Eng.) 83, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 114, shillings per week. Marsh v. Boden (1905) 105 L. T. N. S. 659, 5 B. W. C. C. 55, 7 W. C. C. (Eng.) 110. The court held [1911] W. N. 222, 12 Asp. Mar. L. Cas. that the profit from the lodger was part 89, [1912] W. C. Rep. 58, Ann. Cas. 1913E, of the father's earnings, since he owned | 477. the furniture and was the tenant.

33 Where a wife has not, for twenty 29 New Monckton Collieries v. Keeling years previous to a man's death, lived [1911] A. C. (Eng.) 648, 80 L. J. K. B. with him or been supported in any way N. S. 1205, 105 L. T. N. S. 337, 27 Times by him, she is not a dependent upon him. L. R. 551, 55 Sol. Jo. 687, 4 B. W. C. C. New Monckton Collieries v. Keeling [1911] 332, overruling Williams v. Ocean Coal Co.) A. C. (Eng.) 648, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S.

« السابقةمتابعة »