This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1919 edition. Excerpt: ...which caused his death, then the defense has failed, for the Referee has rightly concluded that there was no evidence before him indicating whether or not the train that causd the death, which was the_same train which the deceased was flagging, was an interstate or intrastate vehicle, but if the contention of the defendant is well founded in law that a watchman at a public crossing of a railroad company over which at times passes interstate as well as intrastate freight is always an employe engaged in interstate commerce, then the Referee was wrong and his legal conclusion from these facts is erroneous and should be reversed and compensation ought to be disallowed." A If the contention of the defense that a-crossing watchman employed to watch or flag a railroad crossing, the tracks of which are constantly being used in both interstate and intrastate commerce, is at all times, regardless of the nature of the commerce being moved over such tracks at the time of the injury, an employe performing work in the interstate commerce in which the carrier is engage/d, is correct, this appeal must be dismissed, because the Referee has found that the tracks at the crossing where the decedent was employed and met his death were constantly used by the defendant in both interstate and intrastate commerce. In DiDonato v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co., supra, the Board held that such an employe is not, as a matter of law, at all times regarded as in the performance of an interstate activity, and that the question of the relation of his employment to interstate commerce is to be determined by the facts in each case. The test of the application of the Federal Employer 's Liability Act, in cases of injury occurring toithe employes of...