if a settlement cannot be reached he is entitled to this information so that he may present it to the arbitrator or Industrial Commission for its consideration in determining the amount of compensation to which the employee is entitled. When the case was called for hearing before the Industrial Commission plaintiff in error requested that this examination be made at its expense by either of two eye specialists suggested by it or by any qualified physician to be selected by the commission. It appears from the statement of attorneys for plaintiff in error to the commission that some two months before the hearing, they had requested defendant in error to submit to an examination by Dr. J. M. Keller, and had advanced to him money necessary to cover expenses that would be occasioned by his trip to the office of the physician. The request of the employer for a physical examination of the employee should be made at a reasonable time, and ordinarily before the case is called for a hearing before the arbitrator or the Industrial Commission. Under the circumstances shown in this record we think it was error for the commission to proceed without requiring defendant in error to submit to an examination by physicians selected by plaintiff in error in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the act or a physician selected by the commission in accordance with section 19 of the act. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Williamson county, with directions to remand the cause to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. Reversed and remanded, with directions. HENRY PRATT CO. V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION (No. 13252.) (Supreme Court of Illinois. June 16, 1920.) 127 Northeastern Reporter 754. et al 1. MASTER AND SERVANT-FATHER EARNING STEADY INCOME HELD NOT "PARTIALLY DEPENDENT" ON SON, WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT. A father of seven children held not partially dependent, under Workmen's Compensation Act, on a son who had contributed some of his earnings to pay for home and a fixed amount for board, where the father earned $18 a week, of which amount he gave his wife $10. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 388.) 2. MASTER AND SERVANT-PARTIAL DEPENDENCY, WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT NOT DEPENDENT ON ABSENCE OF NECESSARIES OF LIFE. Partial dependency may exist, though evidence shows claimant could have subsisted without contributions of deceased employee, and it is not necessary to show that claimant would have been without the necessaries of life, or without other means of support, as the test is whether the contributions were relied on by the dependent for a living, and existence of dependency is largely one of fact. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 388.) 3. MASTER AND SERVANT-PARTIAL DEPENDENCY, WITH. IN COMPENSATION ACT, HELD QUESTION OF FACT. Whether a mother, who received $10 a week from her husband, was partially dependent on deceased son, under Workmen's Compensation Act, the son contributing fixed sum for board and aiding in paying for home, held a question of fact. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 418[6].) 4. MASTER AND SERVANT-FINDING OF PARTIAL DEPENDENCY CONCLUSIVE. Finding of Industrial Commission that mother of son, killed in course of his employment, was partially dependent on him for support, will not be disturbed on writ of error to circuit court, confirming award of commission. (For other cases, see Master and servant, Dec. Dig. § 418[6].) 5. MASTER AND SERVANT INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION MUST DETERMINE PERSONS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION. Under Workmen's Compensation Act, where there is no voluntary payment on part of employer, and the Industrial Commission must determine the compensation for death of employee, it is the further duty of the commission to determine the person or persons entitled to compensation. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 416.) Error to Circuit Court, Cook County. O. M. Torrison, Judge. Proceeding by Henry Olson and another under the Workmen's Compensation Act to recover for death of Hugo Olson, a son, opposed by the Henry Pratt Company, employer From a judgment of the circuit court, confirming award of Industrial Commission to applicants, the employer brings error. Modified and affirmed. Frank M. Cox and Albert N. Powell, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error. Edward J. Kelley, of Chicago, for defendants in error. THOMPSON, J. This writ of error is prosecuted by leave of court to review the judgment of the circuit court of Cook county confirming an award of the Industrial Commission awarding compensation to Henry Olson and Ellen Olson, parents of Hugo Olson, an employee of plaintiff in error, who died from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Compensation was fixed at $1,650, payable in installments, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (c) of section 7 of the Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, § 132). The only question presented is whether the applicants, or either of them, were dependent upon the earnings of deceased within the meaning of the Compensation Act as amended and in force May 31, 1917. [1] From the testimony of the applicants, the only witnesses before the arbitrator, it appears that the family of Henry Olson consisted of himself, his wife and seven children. He was 54 years old, his wife was 59 years old, and deceased was 29 years old, at the time of his death. The two oldest daughters were married, and, while they lived much of the time with their parents, they were supported by their husbands. The other four children-Emma, 25; Teckla, 24; Lydia, 22; and Walter, 19 were single and lived with their parents. The home cost $2.500 and was paid for in installments of $20 a month. The last installment was paid a year or more before the death of Hugo. He contributed toward the payments on the home, furnished materials for painting, papering, and repairing the home, and did the work at odd times. He paid part of the taxes and the coal bills, and paid to his mother $7 a week. for board and room. He furnished her spending money and gave here funds with which to buy clothes. It does not appear from the record whether any of the other children paid board or otherwise contributed toward the support of the home. The father was steadily employed at $18 a week. Of this amount he gave his wife $10, which, with the contributions from the children, constituted the fund from which Mrs. Olson paid all the household expenses. [2] Partial dependency may exist, even though the evidence shows the claimant could have subsisted without the contributions of the deceased employee. It is not necessary to show that the claimant would have been without the necessities of life, nor is it necessary to show that the dependent was without other means of support. Appeal of Hotel Bond Co., 89 Conn. 143, 93 Atl. 245; Havey.v. Erie Railroad Co., 87 N. J. Law, 444, 95 Atl. 124; Kenney v. City of Boston, 222 Mass. 401, 111 N. E. 47. The test is whether the contributions were relied on by the dependent for his or her means of living, judging this by the position in life of the dependent, or whether the dependent is to a substantial degree supported by the employee at the time of the employee's death. The problem presented by this test is largely one of fact. Miller v. Riverside Storage & Cartage Co. (Mich.) 155 N. W. 462; Rock Island. Bridge & Iron Works v. Industrial Com., 287 Ill. 648, 122 N. E. 830; Keller v. Industrial Com., 291 Ill. 314, 126 N. E. 162. In addition to the $8 retained by him from his weekly wages Henry Olson claimed his son contributed largely to his suport. It does not appear what use he made of this money, but, regardless of the use he made of it, we cannot see how it can be said that this father, who was regularly employed, and whose legal duty it was to support his family was dependent upon his son for support. [3-5] On ne other hand, Ellen Olson had no income and was necessarily dependent on some one for support. While her husband was under a legal duty to support her, the question whether she actually received all or a part of her support from her son, and looked to him for such support, is a question of fact, which upon this record is concluded by the finding of the commission that she was partially dependent upon him. Where there is no voluntary payment on the part of the employer, and the Industrial Commission must determine the compensation, it is the further duty of the commission to determine the person or persons entitled to the compensation. Keller v. Industrial Com., supra; Smith-Lohr Cool Mining Co. v. Industrial Com., 286 Ill. 34, 121 N. E. 231. This the commission has failed to do, but the record justifies a finding that Ellen Olson was the only person entitled to compensation. The judgment is modified by awarding compensation to Ellen Olson only, and, as modified, is affirmed. Judgment modified and affirmed. SPARKS MILLING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (No. 13253.) (Supreme Court of Illinois. June 16, 1920.) 127 Northeastern Reporter 737. 1. MASTER AND SERVANT-ACCIDENTAL DEATH, WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT, PRESUMED PRESUMED UNDER CIRCUM STANCES. In a proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act to obtain compensation for death of an employee, whose body was found on the pavement under a window of the mill where he worked, where there is no evidence of suicide or murder, the presumption against the commission of crime is sufficient to support a finding that death resulted from accident. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 403.) 3. MASTER AND SERVANT-INJURY "ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT," WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT, DENIED. An injury arises out of employment, within the Workmen's Compensation Act, when the accident results from a risk reasonably incidental to the employment. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 371.) (For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Course of Employment.) 4. MASTER AND SERVANT - COMPENSATION CLAIMANT MUST SHOW ACCIDENTAL INJURY ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT. In a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act to obtain compensation for the death of a servant, the burden is on the claimant to show that death was caused by accidental injury arising out of the employment. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 403.) 5. MASTER AND SERVANT INJURY ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT, WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT, PROVABLE BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. One claiming compensation for death of a servant under the Workmen's Compensation Act may show that death was caused by accidental injury arising out of the employment by circumstantial as well as direct evidence, but an award cannot be based on surmise or conjecture. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 405[4].) 6. MASTER AND SERVANT-EVIDENCE HELD TO SHOW INJURY ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT, WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT, In a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act to obtain compensation for the death of a mill employee, whose body was found on the pavement under a window of the mill where he had been at work, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the injuries resulting in death arose out of the employment. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. §405[4].) 7. MASTER AND SERVANT DEATH FROM FALL FROM WINDOW HELD ACCIDENT "ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYMENT," WITHIN COMPENSATION ACT: Where it was the established custom of mill employees to go to the windows for fresh air when the heated atmosphere became heavily saturated with dust, an employee, who was killed by falling to the pavement below when at the window for fresh air met his death in an accident arising out of his employment, within the Workmen's Compensation Act. (For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 375[1].) Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; Louis Bernreuter, Judge. Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Cora J. May, executrix, to recover compensation for the death of William F. May, opposed by the Spark Milling Company, the employer. There was an award of compensation by the Industrial Commission, which was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error. Affirmed. Samuel A. Harper, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error THOMPSON, J. October 12, 1918, William F. May suffered injuries at the mill of plaintiff in error which resulted in his death. He had been employed by plaintiff in error for about 12 years. At the time of the accident he was employed as a sweeper and cleaner. It was his duty to sweep the floors and clean up the dirt and mill dust, to brush and clean the machinery, and generally to keep the entire mill and its equipment clean. The mill consisted of four floors and a cupola. On the morning of the accident he left home about 6:30, which was his usual time, and went to the mill, where he changed clothes and went to work at 7 o'clock. He talked with Sam C. Willet, second miller, about 7 o'clock, and again about 7:15. Willet saw the deceased cleaning around the machinery on the fourth floor about 7:30. On this floor there is considerable machinery, including four swinging sifters. These sifters work back and forth with sufficient force to knock a man over if he gets in their way. The south end of the room on the fourth floor is 22 feet wide. At this end there are three windows. Across the west window is a table about 3 feet high. The window sill is about a foot high, leaving about 2 feet of the lower half of the window below the table. Immediately outside of this window is the platform of a fire esape, which is about on the level with the mill floor. The middle window on the south side is about 10 feet east of the window just described. Near the west window is a wheat Scourer. The west sifter is about 12 feet from the west window and the sifters extend eastward; the east sifter being opposite the east window. One of the sifters extends out to within 2 or 3 feet of the edge of the middle window. There is no table and no fire escape at the middle window. The air inside the mill was usually filed with dust, and it was customary to keep all the windows open when the weather permitted. The proof shows that the weather was clear and warm on the day of the accident, and while there is no proof that the windows were open before the accident, many wintnesses testify that they found them open immediately after the accident. We think the evidence clearly warrants the finding that the windows were open at the time of the accident. When Willet last saw and talked to deceased, at 7:30 o'clock, the latter was working between the second and third sifters, which would place him practically opposite the middle window. About 8 o'clock May was found lying on the pavement, below and slightly to the east of the west window. No one saw him fall, but Fred Collins stood within 15 feet of the place where he fell. He was attracted by the 'sound of the body striking the |