A posthumous child may be a dependent within the meaning of the compensation stat utes ; Williams v. Ocean Coal Co., [1907] 2 K. B. 422. Whether or not an illegitimate child can be dependent depends primarily up on the provisions of the particular statute, but unless there appears a contrary intention an illegitimate child may be dependent ; Schofield v. Orrell Colliery Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 178.
In the absence of any statutory prohibition an alien is within the definition of a depend ent, although he still resides in a foreign country.
The fact that one is lending assistance to another does not conclusively prove that he himself is not a dependent. Where it was claimed that a father was partly dependent upon the earnings of his son only because he supported a crippled brother, who lived with him, and it was true that the father was do ing his best to help the brother, the court held that that was a circumstance but was not conclusive on the question of the father's dependence; Leggett v. Borke, 39 Sc. L. Rep. 448.
A husband and wife are living together when there has been no legal separation, and no actual separation, as, for instance, where there has been an estrangement, or a separation with the intention of continuing it permanently. The length of time the par ties are separated and the distance inter vening between them is not necessarily ma terial to the solution of the question. The true intention of the parties is the test by which the matter is determined ; Northwest ern Iron Co. v. Industrial Commission, 154 Wis. 97, 142 N. W. 271.
Workmen. In some of the statutes the term "employe" is used, while others use that of "workman." The two words are synonymous, and used interchangeably.
One is not a workman unless there exists between him and his employer a contract of service. In this regard there is a distinction between a contract of service and a contract for services. The latter not only includes the relation of master and servant, but other relations in which the employer has no con trol over the employe, who may be rendering services as an independent contractor. The former is a contract which creates the rela tion of master and servant. While it is a contract for services, it is something more, the distinguishing feature of which is the right of control the employer has over the way in which the services shall be rendered, not only generally, but in regard to details ; [1910] 1 K. B. 543.
As to casual employment, Buckley, L. J., in Hill v. Begg, [1908] 2 K. B. 802, said: "The words are not 'who is casually employed,' but 'whose employment is of a casual nature.' I have to investigate what is the character of the man's employment, not what is the tenure of his employment. Is the employ ment one which is in its nature casual? To take an analogy or illustration from a dif ferent subject, say land. The question is, what is the nature or quality of the land—is it, for instance, building land or agricultural land—not what estate is held in the land? Suppose that a host, when from time to time he entertains his friends at dinner, or his wife gives a reception or dance, has been in the habit for many years of employing the same men to come in and wait at his table or assist at the reception, it may be said that their employment is regular: But the employment is of a casual nature. It de pends upon the whim or the hospitable in stincts or the social obligations of the host whether he gives any, and how many dinner parties or receptions, and the number of men he will want varies with the number of his guests. In such a case the waiters may not incorrectly be said to be regularly employed in an employment of casual nature." • A window-cleaner called and cleaned the windows of the house of a physician about once a month, without receiving a special invitation or permission to do so on each occasion, and there was no formal contract between the parties. A portion of the house was used by the physician in connection with the practice of his Profession. On one occa sion, while cleaning a window of the dining room, the cleaner received an injury. Held, that the employment was of a casual nature, and that the man was not employed for the purpose of the employer's trade or business ; Rennid v. Reed, 45 Sc. L. Rep. 814.
A woman worked regularly without fresh instructions for an employer on every Friday and alternate Tuesdays for eighteen months. She worked at home and for others on the other days of the week. While at work at this employer's house on one of the specified days, she met with an accident. It was held that the contract of service was of a peri odic nature, and that the employment was not casual ; Dewhurst v. Mather, [1908] 2 K. B. 754.