
    ERROR — MASTER AND SERVANT.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    December 23, 1911.]
    Smith, Swing and Jones, JJ.
    Standard Millwork Co. v. Wm. H. Bick, a Minor.
    1. Judgment in Negligence Case on Evidence Creating Presumption of Negligence, not Refuted, not Reversible.
    A judgment in favor of an injured employe will not be reversed on the weight of evidence, there being evidence creating a presumption of negligence on the part of a master, directly contributing to the injury, and no evidence offered in refutation thereof.
    2. Person Operating Part of Plant and Employing Men in His Part not Independent Contractor.
    One operating part of a manufacturing plant, under an arrangement whereby he is to hire and pay and have entire control of all the employes at work in that portion of the plant, an® the owner is to furnish the material for manufacture together with the use of the plant, is not an independent contractor.
    Error to common pleas court.
    The plaintiff below recovered a judgment of $2,500, for loss of his left hand by a saw, operated in the factory of the defendant below. At the time of the accident one E. B. Swartz was operating a part of the factory for the construction of a certain bind of window blinds and shutters, under a contract that the company should furnish the plant, machinery, lubricating oil and material, and Swartz was to employ and pay all the employes, the company to have no control or supervision over them.
    
      Albert Bellinger and Walter Schmitt, for plaintiff in error.
    
      T. B. Snyder and Thos. L. Michie, for defendant in error.
   JONES, J.

There is evidence in this ease supporting the allegation of the petition charging negligence in starting, the saw, while the boy had his hand in the blow-pipe cleaning it, and that the saw was started without any notice or warning.

Such evidence per se raises a presumption of negligente on the part of the master and places upon him the burden -if removing such presumption. No evidence was offered to explain the starting of the' saw, and such presumption was in no way refuted.

The trial court correctly charged that Swartz was not an independent contractor, and we find the general charge in all other respects correct.

There was no erior in the refusal to give special charges requested by defendant below.

Special charge number 11 (refused) is defective only in that it does not predicate its statement of law upon the condition that the jury find that the saw was in motion when plaintiff placed his hand in the blow-pipe.

With the saw motionless there was no apparent danger.

We find the judgment works substantial justice bétween the parties and there being no error it is affirmed.

Smith and Swing, JJ., concur.  