
    Mueller & Son Company, Appellant, vs. Gothard and another, Respondents.
    
      September 22, 1920
    
    January 11, 1921.
    
    
      Workmen’s compensation:, Treble damages to injured minor:-Misrepresentation as to age: Constitutional law: Child working without permit.
    
    
      1. An award of treble damages to an injured minor,under the workmen’s compensation act should not be set aside because of false representations of the minor as to his age. Stefs v. F. Mayer Boot & Shoe Co. 163 Wis. 151; followed.
    2. Ch. 624, Laws 1917, providing for treble compensation in cases where a minor of permit age is allowed to work without a permit, is constitutional. Brenner v. Heruben, 170 Wis. 565, reaffirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment , of the circuit court for Dane county: E. Ray Stevens, Circuit Judge.
    
      .Affirmed.
    
    Action to review an order of the Industrial Commission awarding, under the workmen’s compensation act, treble damages to a minor in the employ of plaintiff, said minor being of permit age but employed without a permit. It appears that the minor falsely represented himself to be above the permit age and that the employer relied upon such representation in employing him.
    The cause was submitted for the appellant on the briefs of Otjen & Otjen of Milwaukee, attorneys, and E. A. Morse of Antigo, of counsel, and for. the respondent Industrial Commission on that of the Attorney General and Winfield W. Gilman, assistant attorney general.
   The following opinion was filed October 19, 1920:

■Vinje, J.

The claim that the award should be set aside because of the false representations of the minor as to his age is disposed of adversely to plaintiff by the ruling in Stetz v. F. Mayer B. & S. Co. 163 Wis. 151, 156 N. W. 971. A strong appeal and an able argument is presented'to the court to overrule its decision in Brenner v. Heruben, 170 Wis. 565, 176 N. W. 228, holding that ch. 624. Laws 1917, providing for treble compensation in cases where a minor of permit age is allowed to work without a permit, is Constitutional. Counsel for plaintiff presented a brief as amici curice in that case, and made an oral argument therein. We have carefully considered the briefs filed in this case and find that the arguments but supplement those made in the Brenner Case. A reconsideration of the subject matter but confirms us in the view that the Brenner Case was correctly decided and should be adhered to.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $15 costs, on January 11, 1921.  