Schneider v. Raymond

In the view which we take of the case it is only necessary to discuss the first reason of appeal; that the court erred in refusing to correct paragraph eight of the commissioner’s finding so as to show the subordinate facts from which the commissioner concluded that the respondents regularly employed five or more.

The commissioner’s finding on this issue is as follows: “8. Charles Morris, who was doing the mason work, with a driver who carted sand and stone, was not a contractor. He was working under the direct supervision and orders of the respondents, and both he and his driver were…