the legislature to cover such cases as might arise in the removal of cargoes from ships and docks to warehouses, especially carried on for hire. ' '57 Nor is one employed as watchman over cargoes engaged in the work of a longshoreman.5 58 § 98. Maintain.-The word "Maintain" has been held to mean to support that which has already been brought into existence;59 to hold or keep in a particular state or condition, especially in a state of efficiency; to support, sustain, not to suffer to decline. The word may be used in the sense of having control and custody of a place,61 and has been construed to include the erection of a fence,62 and the operation of an elevator.63 It is frequently used as meaning to keep in repair;64 but what repairs are included depends upon the context of the instrument in which it is used.65 It has been held to include the rebuilding of a bridge. washed away by an extraordinary freshet.66 Cleaning streets is repairing or maintaining them, within a law authorizing designated officials to construct, repair and maintain highways. The 67 57. Gutheil v. Consolidated Gas Co., 94 N. Y. Misc. 690, 158 N. Y. S. 622, 16 N. C. C. A. 677. 58. Oberg v. J. C. McRoberts & Co., 175 App. Div. 1, 161 N. Y. S. 934, 16 N. C. C. A. 679. 59. Kendrick & Roberts v. Warren Bros., 110 Md. 47, 72 Atl. 461; Coleman v. Mississippi & Rum River Boom Co., 114 Minn. 443, 131 N. W. 641, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1109; Hoar v. Hennessy, 29 Mont. 253, 74 Pac. 452. 60. Kovachoff v. St. Johns Lbr. Co., 61 Oreg. 174, 121 Pac. 801. 61. State v. Ross, 86 Kan. 799, 121 Pac. 908. 62. Hoar v. Hennessy, 29 Mont. 253, 74 Pac. 452. 63. Globe Ins. Co. v. Wayne, 75 Ohio St. 451, 80 N. E. 13. 64. Ferguson v. Rochford, 84 Conn. 202, 79 Atl. 177, Ann. Cas. 1912 B. 1212; Green River Asphalt Co. v. St. Louis, 188 Mo. 576, 87 S. W. 985; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Bryan,- Tex. -, 107 S. W. 572, citing Verdin v. St. Louis, Mo.-, 27 S. W. 447. 65. Green River Asphalt Co. v. St. Louis, 188 Mo. 576, 87 S. W. 985. 66. Louisville & N. R. Co., v. United States Iron Co., 118 Tenn. 194, 101 S. W. 414. 67. Connor v. Manchester, 73 N. H. 233, 60 Atl. 436. same is true of such work within the Illinois Compensation Act.68 "The first and primary definition given to the word 'maintain' both in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, and in Webster's International Dictionary, is, 'to hold, or keep in any particular state or condition.'* The word 'operate' does not mean the same thing as either the word 'construct,' the word 'maintain,' or the expression 'keep in repair,' and is not included in the significations of either.' '69 * "The business of washing windows, as such, in large cities is as much a part of the maintenance of buildings as would be the replacing of glass in windows, the painting and decorating of the buildings, or the repointing of the outside where the mortar between bricks was giving way. 9970 § 99. Manhole Construction.-Constructing a manhole in the city streets is not a hazardous occupation.71 § 100. Manufacture. "Manufacture" does not include mere wholesale dealing. Consequently, a dealer in dress trimmings does not come within a provision relating to the manufacture of such articles.72 articles.2 The making of hats and feathers in a millinery business is a hazardous employment." 73 Machinery salesman required to inspect machinery in operation, is employed in the "Manufacturing" of machinery, a hazardous employment." The manufacture of stock tonics is held to be manufacture of cattle food, within the New York Act." Prior to the amendment of the New York Act to include the manufac 68. Rock Island v. Industrial Board, 287 Ill. 76. 69. McChesney v. Hyde Park, 151 Ill., 634, 646. 70. Chicago Cleaning Co. v. Industrial Board, 283 Ill. 177, 181, 118 N. E. 989, 16 N. C. C. A. 683. 71. Puget Sound Traction Light & Power Co. v. Schleif, (C. C. A.) 220 Fed. 48, 9 N. C. C. A. 715. 72. 73. 74. 75. Kass v. Herschberg, Schultz & Co., 191 App. Div. 300. Saenger v. Locks, N. Y. 116 N. E. 367, B. I. W. C. L. J. 1208. 114 N. E. 43, B. 1. W. C. L. J. 1176. Markham v. United Breeders Co., 4 S. D. R. 390, 175 App. Div. 957. ture of dairy products, the court denied compensation for the death of an employee of a grocery company resulting from blood poison caused by an injury to his hand while packing butter in tubs.7 76 77 A general utility man, who was killed while building a shelf in a wholesale drug establishment, was within the provision of the New York Act relating to the manufacture of drugs and chemicals. An employee of a retail druggist injured while making glycerite of tannin, a simple process of heating glycerine and stirring in tannin, was not engaged in the manufacture of drugs, within the New York Act.78 79 A chef in a hotel, injured while cutting up meat for distribution, was held not to be engaged in a hazardous occupation, since the preparation of food stuff as used in Section 2, of the act did not mean the ordinary preparation of meat or food-stuff for cooking purposes, but involved a preparation which either changed the form of the material to render it suitable for use, or changed the nature of the material for the same purpose." The commission is justified in awarding compensation to an employee who was injured while handling plate glass, which comes within the statutory enumeration of hazardous employments, on mere proof that he was injured in such occupation. The burden of showing that at the time claimant was engaged in merely packing glass which had been sold to a customer, and which is an ordinary occupation rested upon the employer, and in the absence of such proof the award will be upheld.80 The word "moulding." as used in the New York act relating to manufacture of mouldings, etc., does not include the fastening of mouldings for picture hanging. The manufacture of moving 81 76. Pardy v. Boomhower Grocery Co., 178 App. Div. 347. 77. Larsen v. Paine Drug Co., 169 App. Div. 838, 218 N. Y. 252. 78. Frees v. Kleinau, 190 App Div. 131. 79. De La Gardelle v. Hampton Co., 167 App. Div. 617, 153 N. Y. S. 162, 9 N. C. C. A. 703. In this connection, notice should be directed to the amendment of group 34 of the New York Act, by Laws 1917, ch. 705, to include, "hotels having fifty or more rooms." 81. 80. McQueeney v. Stuphens & Hyer, 167 N. Y. App. Div. 528. Grassell v. Broadhead, 175 App. Div. 874, 162 N. Y. Supp. 421. 82 picture films includes alteration and repair incidental to their distribution; but does not include the taking of a moving picture.83 The manufacture of trunks includes repair of trunks in retail stores belonging to the manufacturer.84 Likewise, manufacture of shoes is held to cover the repair of shoes in shoe repair shops.85 § 101. Mason or Concrete Work.-One engaged in digging under a wall for the purpose of building a pier is not engaged in mason or concrete work so as to bring him within the New York Act.86 An excavation for the purpose of erecting a pillar to strengthen an existing building is incidental to the "concrete work," within the provisions of the act relating to hazardous employment, so as to include an injury to a workman while making the excavation.87 § 102. Meat Market.-Prior to the amendment 1916, conducting a meat market was not considered a hazardous occupation under the New York Act.88 a § 103. Minor. The engagement of a minor to work at a hazardous employment in violation of the statute will render the compensation act inapplicable in so far as the child is concerned.89 82. McDowell v. New Film Corp., 183 App. Div. 910. 83. Michel v. American Cinema Corp., 182 N. Y. Supp. 588, 6 W. C. L. J. 375. 84. Caplan v. Belber Trunk & Bag Co., 4 N. Y., Bul. 54, 18 S. D. R. 563. 85. Santello v. Bell Bros., 188 App. Div. 946. 86. Morris v. Muldoon, App. Div. (1919), 177 N. Y. S. 673, 4 W. 88. Pietha v. Murdter, 174 N. Y. App. Div. 764, 161 N. Y. Supp. 661, 16 N. C. C. A. 640. 89. Kruczkowski v. Polonia Pub. Co., 203 Mich. 213, 168 N. W. 932, 17 N. C. C. A. 611; Waterman Lumber Co. v. Beatty, Tex. Civ. App. 204 S. W. 448, 17 N C. C. A. 614. See section, 14, ante, Minors. In New York it is held that a child, injured while operating an elevator in violation of the Labor Law, must seek redress solely under the Compensation Act.9° The operation § 104. Moving Picture. (See Manufacture.) of a moving picture machine is not work in connection with "electric power lines, dynamos or appliances" so as to make it a hazardous employment. The court said: "The word is used in Section 2, Group 12, of the New York Act, in connection with the repair or operation of electric light and electric power lines, dynamos and power transmission lines. Plainly the application of the rule of ejusdem generis precludes the construction claimed by the respondent. The word 'appliances' must be considered as limited by the words with which it is associated. *** The motor which applied the current to the moving picture machine might properly be called an appliance with the meaning of group 12, and had the claimant been injured while operating the motor a very different question would be presented. It can hardly be said, however, that the machine to which the electricity was applied, simply resulting in the machine being put in motion, was an appliance within group 12. The operation of the machine by electricity or the presence of electricity had nothing to do with causing the injury to claimant. The injury would have been sustained had the machine been operated by means of water or any other motive power. The only connection between the electric power and claimant's injury was that electric power operated the machine upon coming in contact with which the claimant was injured. As well might it be claimed that a person struck by a revolving crank of a washing machine, the operating power of which was electricity, was injured by an electrical appliance. Cars and machinery of all kinds are operated by electricity yet it cannot be said that such mere consumers of electric current are themselves electrical appliances. ''91 2791 90. Robilotto v. Bartholdi Realty Co., 104 Misc. 419. 91. Balcom v. Ellintuch & Yarfitz, 179 App. Div. 548, 166 N. Y. S. 841, 16 N. C. C. A. 681. |