Rules prescribed by the supreme court governing the commencement and trial of actions commenced therein for the purpose of reviewing awards or decisions of the commission under the workmen's compensation law:

Rule One-Actions for the purpose of reviewing award or decisions of the commission shall be commenced in the supreme court by the aggrieved party filing with the clerk thereof a petition, to which shall be attached a certified copy of the award or decision, wherein he shall make assignments or specifications as to wherein the award or decision is erroneous or illegal. All parties joining in such petition shall be designated "petitioner," and the commission and all parties affected by the award or decision sought to be reviewed, shall be joined therein as "respondents'..

Rule Two-Notice of the filing of such petitions shall forthwith be served upon the respondents therein, or their attorney of record, by the clerk of the supreme court, by mail, in the manner parties to ordinary actions pending in said court are notified of the action of the court in relation to preliminary motions and orders. In the absence

of substantial evidence to the contrary, it shall be presumed that sufficient notice of the filing of said petition was given.

Rule Three-Within ten (10) days after the issuance of the notice required by Rule Two, the respondent shall file a pleading which shall be known as wherein an answer," he shall set forth in full any and all defenses he may have against the petition of the petitioner. The petition and answer shall be all the pleadings which shall be filed in such actions in the supreme court.

Rule Four-The Clerk of the supreme court shall set such actions for hearing on the first court day which occurs thirty-five (35) days after the answer required by Rule Three

is filed.

Rule Five-The petitioner shall serve and file his brief within twenty (20) days after the answer of the respondent is filed and the respondent is required to serve and file his brief within fifteen (15) days after the expiration of the time granted the petitioner. All briefs may be typewritten, and legible Copies thereof shall be provided for each member of the court.

Rule Six-The action shall be heard in a summary manner upon the record and proceedings had before the commission, or so much thereof as may be necessary to present for review the questions raised by the petition and answer; and to this end, the parties may agree as to what the record and proceedings below contain, or, the court, upon its own motion, or upon the motion of any of the parties affected, may at any time be

fore final decision, order the commission to forthwith certify up such record and proceedings, or such part thereof as may be necessary for the trial of such action. Upon the hearing of such action the decision of the commission shall be final as to all questions of fact.

Rule Seven-Prior to the completion of the trial record in the supreme court, in the manner provided by Rule Six, counsel, in the preparation and filing of all pleadings, preliminary motions, briefs, etc., shall be charged with notice of the contents of the records and proceedings below, as they appear in the records, files and archives of the commission.

Rule Eight-Unless by agreement of the parties, no such action shall be dismissed by the supreme court without a full hearing upon any ground, except that the petition required by Rule One was not filed within the time required by law.

Rule Nine-Immediately after the expiration of ten (10) days from the determination of such action by the supreme court, mandate shall be issued as in ordinary cases on appeal, on receipt of which the commission shall make an order or decision in accordance with the judgment of the supreme

court.

Rule Ten-No petition for rehearing decisions rendered by the supreme court shall be filed, except by order of the supreme court prior to the issuance of mandate wherein shall be stated the time within which such petition shall be filed.

Rule Eleven-Attorneys desiring to m oral arguments shall file notice of suc tention with the clerk, as follows. On b of the petitioner at the time of filing his petition; on behalf of the respondent at the time of filing his answer. If no notice is served, causes will be submitted on briefs.

Rule Twelve-Such actions shall be subject to the general "rules of the supreme court, " heretofore revised and adopted, insofar as the same may be applicable and not inconsistent with the foregoing rules.

DIVISION'S TERM EXTENDED

In an order issued by the supreme. court the term of Division Four of the supreme court commission has been extended to January 31, 1917. This division includes Commissioners Frank Matthews, J. C. Robberts and Preston S. Davis. The latter was appointed to the commission just last week in the place of Judge Charles G. Watts, who resigned to resume private practice. The term of the commission would have expired on April 1, had it not been extended by the supreme court.

The subject of this sketch is most intimately and favorably known to practically every member of the legal fraternity in Oklahoma, it not of the entire southwest. His fame as a Jurist has grown to be nation-wide in the past eight years, during which period the "Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals,"

of which he has been a member since its organization in 1908, has come to be recognized as one of the greatest appellate courts of the land. In this case one does not have to go away from home to learn the news, but it is pertinent here to cite a few expressions from eminent authorities that will show the

standing at home and abroad attained by the court of which Judge Doyle is the presiding officer and ranking member.

The American Law Review said editorially some years ago:

The Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, by its decisions puts its State ahead of nearly all its older sisters in progressive Criminal Jurisprudence."

The Oklahoma Law Journal, under a former management said:

"The work of the court has undoubtedly upheld the best traditions of the Bench, and it has earned the confidence and respect of the people of the new State in its administration of the Criminal Law." Continuing it

said:

"Since the organization of the Criminal Court of Appeals, Judge Doyle, owing to the large amount of work before the Court has not taken a vacation and he has been present at every sitting of the Court. Possessed of a keen, discerning mind, of untiring industry and a high sense of justice, his work as a Judge has been of such a character as to more than justify the wisdom of his selection. His profound knowledge of the law, his experience on the Bench; his innate love of justice and the service he has rendered humanity and the State, eminently entitles him to re-election as a proper recognition of his merit and fidelity."

Professor Wigmore, one of the most eminent law writers of the current times has said:

"That the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, by its decisions has become the greatest Criminal Court of the age.'

Collier's Weekly, concluding an editorial commendatory of this Court has said:

"We take off our hats to the Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, and greet its decisions with a cheer. Far may its influence spread."

It is no reflection upon the able colleagues of Judge Doyle on this Court to say that the lion's share of its work has fallen upon his broad and capable shoulders. He has been a member of the Court from the date of its organization and during that period of eight years has never missed a sitting of the Court. During this time this tribunal has handed down more than twenty-nine hundred written opinions, more than one-half of which have been prepared by Judge Doyle, who has participated in all decisions but two.

No reference to the career of Judge Doyle would be complete which did not recognize his splendid services to the State before his entry upon judicial work. From the very beginning of history in old Oklahoma he was an active factor in every movement for the up-building and development of the Territory. During his service of two terms in the Territorial Legislature, he was a leader and prime mover in the initiation and passage of laws and the formation of public policies that protected and conserved the rights of home

steaders, lessees on the public lands, and the interests of labor, whose protective organizations were then in their infancy.

In the long period of agitation and struggle for Statehood, Judge Doyle was one of the original and most active champions of the cause of single Statehood. He was many times selected as a delegate to Washington to represent this idea and to promote its success before the congressional and senatorial committees on territories. He wrote the original single Statehood bill introduced in congress, and in an able speech before the congressional committee, secured the adoption of the principles he urged as the basis of all subsequent statehood bills and the frame work of the Enabling Act which was finally passed in 1906. In all this unselfish work for the people of the State, Judge Doyle's public spirit led him to volunteer his efforts and pay his own expenses.

New comers to the State do not realize how frequently in the early days a handful of public-spirited men were called upon to sacrifice their time and money for the promotion of the public interests. The real government of the Territories was in Washington, hundreds of miles away, where the ruling of a department head or bureau clerk could materially change and vitally and unfairly affect the property rights of thousands of new settlers on the public domain, and in securing the adjustment of these rights, Judge Doyle was one of the foremost defenders and representatives of the people.

He is to-day considered one of the leading public men of the State, whose opinion and counsel are sought and acted upon by leaders of his party and the foremost thinkers in the new commonwealth, and his public services are more and more highly appreciated as the years go by. Sound in his convictions of justice and right; upright in his conduct as a Judge and as a Citizen, warm-hearted and generous in his friendship; broad-minded and clear in his outlook upon public affairs, Judge Thos. H. Doyle, or ("Tom" Doyle, as he is more intimately known to his host of admirers throughout the State), has achieved a place in the hearts of the people and in the history of Oklahoma, that is entirely his own and one that it is hoped he will live to enjoy for many years to come.

TO CONTROL TRADE COUPONS

By holding that the states have the power to impose taxes, large or small, on trade coupons redeemable in premiums, the United States supreme court put the legality of premium advertising, by which it is estimated $125,000,000 worth of merchandise is sold annually, within the scope of state laws.

The widespread practice of giving coupons with cigars, cigarettes and tobacco, or premium slips or trading stamps with other merchandise, was thus held to be entirely under the control of the state.

Industrial Commission Lays Down Rule That An Employe Injured in Horse Play with Another Employe Is Not Entitled to Compensation-Other Case Disposes of Question of What Is An Independent Contractor.

The Oklahoma Industrial Commission, in two cases that were presented to it, established points that will to a great extent aid the commission in disposing of future cases with similar conditions. The question of an independent contractor was raised by the Byers Drilling Company and the Fidelity and Deposit Company in the case of Luther Higginbotham, in the injury of the latter, and was settled by the commission.

In the case of S. R. Mealy against the Rogers County Drilling Company and the Aetna Life Insurance Company, the defendants objected to the payment of compensation on the ground that Mealy was injured while scuffling with a fellow employe and not while actually at work. In this case the commission held with the defendants.

In the Higginbotham case, all points were practically conceded except that the employe was an independent contractor, that he was a member of the firm of the "Pumpkin Center Casing Crew." On this point the commission made the following deduction from evidence:

"The testimony of the case shows that the work on this well was done by five men who do certain work for oil contractors and are called a casing crew. The Byers Drilling Company employed the Pumpkin Center Casing Crew to run casing for it in their well for $25.00 and that each man received $5.00 per day, for his labor. That the driller had supervision over the work and that the casing crew's work was done according to the instructions and control of the driller. He is the man the crew looked to for instructions as to lowering or raising the casing, who runs the engine and decides other matters connected with the casing. The other part of the work was done by the casing crew and the tool dresser. The casing crew as a matter of convenience selected a foreman of their work who was the claimant, Higginbotham, who had been experienced in this line of work. Proof further shows that the five members of the casing crew, the driller and tool dresser all worked on that job, making seven men in all. Each man had a duty to perform. The proof further shows that if the

employer causes delay to the casing crew the crew receives extra pay and if it requires more than 12 hours to case a well they are paid extra time. The check is sometimes made payable to the foreman, sometimes to a member of the crew, sometimes to the crew. In this case the check was made to the Pumpkin Center Casing Crew, cashed and divided by them, each man receiving $5.00 for his labor.

From a careful review of the testimony in this case we are of the opinion that under all the facts in the case as applied to the law he is not an independent contractor."

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma in the case of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Bennett, 36 Okla. 358, 128 Pac. 705, states:

"An independent contractor is one who, exercising an independent employment, contracts to do a piece of work according to his own methods, and without being subject to the control of his employer except as to the result of the work (quoting Words and Phrases, Vol. 4, p. 3542)."'

The commission accordingly awarded compensation to the injured man. The opinion was written by W. C. Jackson.

In the case of Mealy, in his statement to the commission alleged that when the injury occurred he had placed his hand on the shoulder of a fellow employe to sit down and that his fellow employe threw his arms around him and in trying to protect himself they rolled over together and his leg hit a stone, breaking it. The question for the commission to decide, was it an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the claimant's employment.

"Attempts have been made to distinguish between cases of where both parties have voluntarily engaged in horse play or fooling and where the aggressor is fooling and the injured is attending to his own work as claimant in this case contends he was doing," says the commission the opinion being written by Chairman A. A. McDonald. "But, we are unable to see how the injury arises in the course of employment whether both voluntarily engage in horse play or only one. In no event is it an accident arising in the course of employment.

"This view is well expressed in the British case of Fitzgerald v. Clarke & Son. In Butterworth's Workmen's Compensation Cases, 197, p. 200, decided in 1908, the master of the rolls, referring with approval to the case of Armitage v. Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway Company, 2 K. B., 178, decided 1902; speaks as follows:

"The Court laid down what I think was a

clear and intelligible proposition, that where an accident happened to a workman, while engaged at his work, by reason of the tortious act of a fellow workman which had no relation to their employment, the accident did not arise out of the employment within the meaning of the Workman's Compensation Act, 1897. It was there argued, as it has been argued here, that where a number of young boys are employed together at work, it is a common experience that they will, when the foreman's back is turned, occasionally engage in 'Larking'; and it was submitted there that if two boys in the same employment got 'larking' over their work and injury was accidentally thereby occasioned to a third who was engaged upon his work, the accident must be said to arise out of and in the course of the employment. That argument was dealt with and repudiated by every member of the Court in the year 1902. So far as I am aware, that case has never been questioned or challenged in this Court or in the House of Lords.'"'

"The American Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions have with few exceptions accepted this view. It is also accepted by the following text writers:

Bradbury's Workman's Compensation, Vol. 1, p. 511, sec. 23.

Boyd's Workman's Compensation, Vol. 1, sec. 476.

Harpers Workman's Compensation, p. 57, sec. 46.

"It will therefore be held that claimant's injury did not arise in the course of his employment and compensation will be denied."

PRISON FARM WORK

The board of affairs is making arrangements to take about two hundred prisoners from the state penitentiary and place them at work on the prison farm recently purchased, which is located at Aylesworth, between Durant and Madill. Material will be sent there immediately to build a stockade for the prisoners. Not all of them will be employed in working the farm, but the forces will be divided between cultivating crops and making improvements on the farm. It is the purpose of the board of affairs to raise cotton, which can be sold for cash, and then raise enough corn and other feed on the farm for stock that may be purchased for the prison. It is the belief of the members of the board that they can raise enough stuff on the farm to supply the prison and other institutions with vegetables and feed for such live stock as is kept at the institutions.

SALARY CANNOT BE INCREASED Salaries of county officials based on the 1910 federal census must govern even if the appointment of successors who are filling out unexpired terms of the former officials is made after another census is taken upon the basis of which an increase in salary would be justi

fied.

This is the substance of an opinion from the attorney general's office to J. P. Evers of Tulsa, who has been appointed county attorney to fill an unexpired term. The salary of the former county attorney was fixed by a law based on the 1910 federal census. A

subsequent census of the county shows a marked increase in the population of the county, and which would allow a much larger salary than now paid. The attorney general holds that the appointment is merely carrying out the term of the previous official who was elected and drew salary provided under the 1910 federal census.

MORE CASES THAN TENNESSEE

Relative to the proposition of the creation of the Tenth district of the United States circuit court of appeals, in which Oklahoma is to be included, and as an argument that Oklahoma City should be made one of the court towns, figures have been compiled showing that Oklahoma in 1915 furnished more than fifty per cent. of the business for the district, which would be composed of the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, and the northern districts of Alabama and Mississippi. In the aggregate of business for the district Oklahoma leads Tennessee, in spite of the fact that such cities as Memphis and Nashville are in that state. In the years from 1909 to 1915, inclusive, there were 197 cases furnished from Oklahoma while only 133 from Tennessee, Oklahoma's nearest competitor.

SAFETY-FIRST MEETING

W. G. Ashton, state labor commissioner, is preparing for a safety-first meeting, to be held in Oklahoma City some time next month. This will mark the beginning of the campaign of safety-first meetings he will hold over the state during the summer months of this year. Commissioner Ashton believes that great success will attend the efforts to be made this year in bringing employers of labor to a sense of safety to which employes are entitled. So far in the work the commissioner says he has met with splendid cooperation among employers.

INDIVIDUAL SURETIES RESPONSIBLE

Although a bond with individuals as sureties may not be strict compliance with the law governing the giving of bonds, where the parties have already devired the benefits of such bond, the sureties are responsible, and the bond is good as a common law bond, is the holding of the supreme court in a case coming from Ellis county. County funds were deposited in the First State bank of Shattuck, secured by a bond made by individuals. The bank became insolvent and the county looked to the bondsmen for security against loss.