323. No improvidence on the part of the legatee was intrastate, the fact that the car was being at-
and no inability to manage her business affairs, being tached to a train which had come from a point out-
shown, the only intent of the testator appears to side of the state, but which was bound to a point
have been to provide a safe investment by his ex- within the state, does not establish that the decedent
ecutors of about one-half of the legatee's share, pay- was "engaged in interstate commerce" at the time of
ing the income to her and the principal to her chil- the accident.--1b.
331. One employed as helper to the driver of a
324. He used no technical language that would delivery motor truck suffered an injury while riding
prevent his daughter from assigning her income as on the running board after giving up his seat—which
it accrued and there was nothing said by him, so proved to be a place of safety—to some girls over-
far as the will divulges, that would indicate that taken enroute: Held, that while he might have been
he was averse to her prospective husband sharing guilty of contributory negligence he was not at the
in the benefit of the accrued income.- 1b.
time outside "the course of his employment," and
325. Frey's Estate, 25 York LEGAL RECORD therefore not barred from relief under the Compen-
sation Law-Siglin et al. v. Armour & Co., 156.
326. Testator devised certain real estate to D for
332. Under Section 409 of the Workman's Com-
life and directed that at her death it shall be sold pensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, the rul-
and the proceeds "equally divided among the suring of the compensation board in reversing the find-
viving devisees named in my will, or their legaling of a referee and setting aside his award is final
representatives." The auditor distributed the pro- when there is no question of law involved. -Me-
ceeds of sale of the real estate amongst the devisees Gurrin v. Hudson Coal Co., 166.
who survived the testator or their legal representa- 333. One who employs a minor contrary to the
tives. On exceptions filed, the court below, WAN. Child's Labor Act of May 13, 1915, P. L. 286, is
NER, P. J., held that the entire fund should have liable in damages for injuries to such employe in
ben awarded to the executors of F, who was the an action at law. Such an employe is not within
only legatee who survived the life tenant. On ap the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915.--- Ayres
peal, Held, to have been error, and that the Au-Jet al. v. John Dunlap Co., 153.
ditor's report must be confirmed.--Fetrow's Estate,
334. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915,
No. 2, 39.
referring as it does to parties legally competent to
327. The reasonable interpretation of the phrase contract, must not be construed as destructive of
“surviving devisees or their legal representatives.' statutes enacted for the protection of employes of
is to refer the word "surviving" to testator's death whom many are under legal disability, so that
and construe “or their legal representatives," as in the Compensation Act does not deprive such em-
tended to prevent the lapse of the shares of any leg- ployes of their rights at cominon law.--Ib.
atees who might die before the time for distribution
335. A statutory demurrer under the Practice
Act of 1915 was overruled in an action for dam-
328. This interpretation placed upon the phrase ages for injuries received by a minor while employed
avoids intestacy and secures equality of distribution contrary to the Child's Labor Act of May 13, 1917,
among the legatees.- 1b.
P. L. 286, in that such an employé was not with-
in the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation
WITNESSES, COMPETENCY OF, 74, 264- Act, which does not vest minors with power to con-
336. Where, on appeal from an award of the
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, 250.
Workmen's Compensation Board allowing compen-
329. In an appeal from the Workmen's Com-sation to the widow of an employe killed in a coal
pensation Board where the only defense is that the mine, liability is sought to be avoided on the ground
Federal Employers' Liability Act governs the case that death was self-inflicted and intentional, the
to the exclusion of the State Compensation Act, the burden is on the employer, and when that burden
burden is upon the defendant to prove the facts nec- is not met, death will be presumed to have been
essary to show that the decedent was engaged in in accidental, and the appeal should be dismissed.
terstate commerce at the time of the accident.-Me- Watson v. Pittsburg Coal Company, 73.
Laughlin v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. 162.
337. The fact than an employe in a coal mine
330. Where the last duty in which a railroad was killed by the explosion of a lamp which he was
yard employee was seen to be engaged prior to his willing with explosive oil brought into the mine con-
death was upon a car, the entire journey of which trary to the Act of June 9, 1911, P. L. 756, which