on condition that he would promptly return on being called, which he failed to do. The main question was whether the attendant was the servant of the bath-house keeper or of the bather. The court said : "Martin was one of several persons connected with the defendants' bath-house in the capacity of attendants upon persons who desired their assistance in taking baths. These attendants were selected by the manager of the bath-house, and during the period of their service enjoyed the exclusive privilege of administering baths and of receiving the fees allowed therefor. In consideration of this privilege they not only attended at the bath-house for the purpose of performing their duties in assisting bathers, but kept the bath-rooms clean, and made the halls between the rooms comfortable by keeping them properly heated. It resulted, from the nature of their employment and from the supervision essential to the usefulness of the bath house, that the attendants should be subject to the general control of the manager, and to dismissal by him for any sufficient cause. The manager had power to assign either of them to the service of any visitor who had not selected an attendant for himself, and they could earn no fees otherwise than by using the rooms and other bathing appliances belonging to the defendants. Their labors were all in furtherance of the business enterprise in which the defendants were engaged, and it was entirely incon sistent with the interests of the latter, and with the duty they owed to the public as lessees and proprietors of the bath-house, that attendants upon bathers should be allowed to pursue their calling as independent contractors, or as persons conducting a business not subordinate to the business of the defendants. This being so, we think the position of the attendants was such that the law, in afford ing a remedy to third persons for their negligence, will regard them as the servants of the defendants, whether they served under an actual contract with the defendants or not. Cooley Torts, 623; Wood Mast. & S. § 304. But we think they acted under a contract with the defend ants, and it is not speaking accurately to say that the administration of baths was the only service they ren dered for the fees they received. The fees were paid to them by permission of the defendants, and were accepted as compensating them for all their labors at the bath house, including their services in keeping the rooms and halls in a cleanly and comfortable condition. That they received no compensation except as it came to them in fees paid by the bathers they were selected or assigned to wait upon, and that bathers had the privilege of selecting their own attendants, and paying the fees directly to them, are facts which go to show that the amount of the fees to be paid each attendant was uncertain and contingent; but such facts are entirely consistent with the proposition that the right to earn any fees at all grew out of a con tract with the defendants. Martin's position, then, was similar to that of a servant at a hotel, to which reference is made by way of illustration in the case of Laugher v. Pointer, 5 Barn. & C. 579."
LIBEL ON CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE. — It seems that candidates for office have some ric-hts that news
papers are bound to respect. In Hallam v. Post Pub. Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 456, the action was for libel by reason of the publication of the following article in the "Cincinnati Evening Post" of the 14111 of October, 1892: — "Berry paid Expenses of Theo. Hallam in the Sixth (Ky.) District Contest for the Nomination of a Democrat for Congress. — The Berry-Hallam congressional fight in the sixth Kentucky district is still on. That is to say, Banquo's ghost bobs up now and then, to the annoyance of the congressional nominee, Berry, and the mortification of the defeated candidate, Theo. F. Hallam. The Boone County Recorder delivers a broadside at the Kenton county delegates, and naively asks, ' Why don't they comc out, and tell the truth about what induced them to go to Berry? The world knows.' Yes, the world knows, and you might say Mars and the other planets know it also Proprietor Roth, of the St. Nicholas Hotel, has an inside ' cinch ' on this information. Every one knows Colonel Berry. He is a monopolist, corporation controller, mil lionaire speculator, political wire-puller, first-class hustler, and a pretty good sort of fellow, llallam is a successful lawyer at Covington : but legal eminence there does not mean the fat incomes that arc its synonyms on this side of the Ohio. Hallam is one of the 'bhoys,' loves ward poli tics for the fun, if not the emoluments, and is about as poor as a church mouse. In fact, he owes several hundred dollars for taxes. The two counties, Kenton and Camp bell, threw out their hooks for the congressional nomina tion. Kenton swore by Hallam, while Campbell vowed that the political friend and chum of Carlisle, Cassius M. Clay, Jr., and Charles J. Helm, their own millionaire and boss, Albert S. Berry, should be the nominee. The tight waxed hot. The convention was held at Warsaw, com mencing on September 27th, and ending September 3oth The Kenton boys prepared for the (ray. The principal preparations consisted in engaging the steamer ' Henri etta ' to carry the delegates to Warsaw, and the carte blanche orders to Mr. Roth, of the St. Nicholas hostelry, to fill her up from truck to keelson with the best the cellar and the larder of the house afforded. As one dele gate remarked : ' Why, the champagne flowed off the decks so much that even the " Henrietta " was swimming in it Hallam and his crew did all the feasting and the drinking. The Campbell men were not in it ' But the bill was made out to Colonel A S. Berry. Here is the bill : ' St. Nicholas. Edward N. Roth. Cincinnati, Oct. ID, 1892. Colonel A. S. Berry, per Theodore F Hallam, to the St. Nicholas Hotel Company, Dr. : For meals, service, wine, and cigars served on board steamer " Hen rietta," $865.15.' Then again: At Warsaw the battle raged four days. On the last day Colonel Berry and Lawyer Hallam were seen to go arm in arm to the rear of the court-house where the convention was held. They had a quiet and confidential chat. At its conclusion Hall. un called his warriors about him, and spoke to them in whispers. Immediately thereafter the whole Kenton county delegation cast its vote for Colonel Berry, and he received the nomination. Is Colonel Berry carrying out all and every of the promises he made? Ah, there 's the rub! Mr. Roth, of the St. Nicholas, has sent a bi'l of
