144 
Contemporary  Agricultural  Law. 
II. — Decisions  of  the  Coukts. 
1.  Labour.  There  have  been  many  decisions  on  points 
arising  under  the  Workmen’s  Compensation  Act,  1906,  though 
only  a few  of  these  especially  concern  agriculturists.  In 
Rowland  v.  Wright  (1909,  1 K.B.,  963  ; 77  L.J.K.B.,  1071),  it 
was  held  by  the  Court  of  Appeal  that  where  a teamster  in  the 
course  of  his  employment  was  taking  his  meal  in  the  stable, 
and  one  of  the  stable  cats  flew  at  and  bit  him,  and  the  bite 
resulted  in  serious  injury,  the  accident  arose  “ out  of  and  in 
the  course  of  his  employment,”  and  that  he  was  therefore 
entitled  to  compensation  from  his  employer  for  the  injury. 
In  McLean  v.  Moss  Bay  Iron  and  Steel  Company  (1909,  2 
K.B.,  521  ; 78  L.J.K.B.,  849),  a man  married  the  mother  of  an 
illegitimate  child,  not  being  himself  the  putative  father.  The 
three  lived  together,  the  son  paying  all  his  wages  into  the 
common  family  fund.  The  son  having  met  his  death  by  an 
accident,  the  husband  and  mother  claimed  compensation  as 
“dependants”  under  the  Act.  It  was  held  by  the  Court  of 
Appeal  that  the  husband  was  not  within  the  class  of  “ depen- 
dants,” and  also  that  the  mother,  though  within  that  class,  could 
not  recover,  as  she  must  be  taken  to  have  been  wholly 
dependent  upon  the  earnings  of  her  husband,  who  was  legally 
bound  to  support  her.  The  Master  of  the  Rolls  doubted 
whether  in  the  ordinary  case  of  a husband  and  wife  living 
together  with  other  members  of  the  family  the  wife  can  even 
claim,  as  distinct  from  the  husband,  to  be  dependent  upon 
the  earnings  of  a member  of  the  family  whose  wages  have 
gone  to  increase  the  common  fund,  and  have  not  been  in  any 
way  appropriated  to  the  benefit  of  the  mother  as  distinct  from 
her  husband. 
Marks  v.  Came  (1909,  2 K.B.,  516  ; 78  L.J.K.B.  853)  is  a 
decision  under  Section  4 of  the  same  Act,  which  deals  with  cases 
of  sub-contracting,  and  makes  a person  for  the  purpose  of  his 
trade  or  business  contracting  with  another  person  (called  the 
“ contractor  ”)  for  the  execution  by  the  contractor  of  any  work 
undertaken  by  the  principal,  liable  for  injuries  to  workmen 
employed  by  the  contractor.  It  was  in  that  case  held  that  a 
timber  merchant  who  bought  certain  trees  standing,  and  con- 
tracted with  Marks  to  fell  the  same,  was  not  liable  for  injury, 
which  happened  in  the  course  of  felling  to  Marks’  son,  as  the 
son,  being  a member  of  Marks’  family,  was  not  a “ workman 
employed  ” by  Marks.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  however, 
that  this  section  does  not  extend  to  cases  where  the  contract 
relates  to  threshing,  ploughing,  or  other  agricultural  work, 
and  the  contractor  provides  and  uses  machinery  driven  by 
mechanical  power  for  the  purpose  of  such  work.  In  that  case 
the  contractor  only,  and  not  the  farmer  employing  him,  is 
