If a man is employed for the purposes of the employer's trade or business, it matters not that the employment is of a casual na ture.
A laborer complained of the height of a hedge which extended between his garden and the land of a farmer ; the hedge being lo cated entirely on the land of the latter. The former agreed to give the laborer ten shillings to cut the hedge, and he (the farmer) would use the poles on his farm. While em ployed at this work the laborer met with an accident. Held that, while the employment was of a casual nature, it was for the pur pose of the farmer's trade or business, and that the laborer was a workman engaged in that employment ; Tombs v. Bouford, 106 L. T. Rep. 823.
One May, a real estate agent, who had been instructed to let a dwelling house, de cided to take the house himself. He was allowed a sum to pay for redecorating and repairing the house, and he contracted with one Smith to do the work under his (May's) supervision. Smith employed a man to help, who was injured in the course of the work. Held, that this was not a contract in the course of or for the purpose of May's trade or business ; Brine v. May, etc., CQ., 6 Butter worth's W. C. Cas. 134.
members of an employer's family are not workmen. A man, twenty-six years of age, was employed as an ordinary workman by his father, with whom he lived, paying board and lodging. While employed by his fa ther on work at another town, where he lodg ed for the time, he received an injury, for which he applied for an award of compensa tion. The son maintained that, being self supporting, he was not a member of the em ployer's family and that, being absent at the time of the accident, he was not "dwelling in his house." It was held that at the time of the accident he was a "member of the em ployer's family dwelling in his house," and accordingly was not a "workman" ; Mc Dongall v. McDongall, 48 Sc. L. Rep. 315.
An independent contractor is not a work man; indeed, when a person undertakes to do work as a contractor, that fact negatives the idea that he is a workman. Thus a man was employed by timber merchants to bring his horse and drag logs from one place to another, for which he was paid by the day. His work was to lead the horse, and
this he might have done by a means of a substitute, it not being understood that he should perform the work personally. It was held that he was an independent contractor, and was not entitled to compensation for in juries received while so engaged ; Chrisholm v. Walker & Co., 46 Sc. L. Rep. 24.
A partner may be a workman for the firm. One of three partners, owners and operators of a coal mine, worked in the mine as work ing foreman, under an agreement with the other partners that he should receive weekly wages like an ordinary workman. While so engaged he met with an accident, which caus ed his death, and a claim for compensation was made by his widow against the surviv ing partners. It was held that, as the de ceased had been a partner in the firm, there was not the relation of employer and employ ed contemplated by the statute ; Ellis v. El. lis & Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 324. It was said that the deceased man might come within the definition of "workman." if the definition were considered separate from the other pro visions of the act, but, in view of the fact that the act contemplates the existence of the relation of employer and employed, and it being evident that the same man cannot be both employer and employed, the relation in its true sense did not exist, and the ap plicant must therefore fail.
Employe of a charitable institution is a workman. A blind pauper was injured while working in the industrial department of a charitable institution, which supplied chari table instruction to blind persons. The in stitution was not self-supporting, but depend ed partly on charity. On account of this pauper the institution received fourteen pounds eight shillings a year from his parish, and twenty pounds a year from a charitable fund. The institution supplied the pauper with board, lodging and clothing, and paid him five shillings a month. Held, that the pauper was a workman ; MacGillivay v. Northern Counties Institute, [1911] Sc. Sess. Cas. 897. A man employed by a society for the purpose of giving work to unemployed per sons has been held to be a workman ; Por ton v. Central Body, [1909] 1 K. B. 173.