tion for the jury and if there were evidence in this case showing that there was a continual incapacity preventing the plaintiff from sending the notice required in the policy the length of such incapacity as bearing upon a reasonable time at which the notice was sent would have been a question for the jury, but there was no evidence to submit on this point. The extent of the proof was that the man was in the hospital up to the first of September and that he was occasionally delirious resulting from wound fever but that such delirium did not occur for any length of time and ceased as soon as the wound was dressed. Considering all the circumstances of the case, I believe as a matter of law that the written notice given in September was not a notice such as is required by the policy. See People's Accident Asso. vs. Smith, 126 Pa. 317. Now April 3rd, 1905, the motion to take off the nonsuit is overruled. PETER MOYER US. MARY KNECHEL. Practice-Justice of the Peace-Service of Summons-Act of July 9, 1901, P. L. 614. When the record shows a return of the summons issued by a justice of the peace within five days of its issuing the preceedings will be reversed. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Peter Moyer, Plaintiff in Error and Defendant below vs. Mary Knechel, Defendant in Error and Plaintiff below. No. 17 June Term, 1904. Certiorari. Proceedings reversed. Lewis and Schantz for Plaintiff in Error. Trexler, P. J., April 3, 1905. There are six specific exceptions filed almost any of which would be fatal. Peter Moyer is a resident of this Commonwealth, so admitted at the argument and, in any event, presumed to be. The record discloses a return of the summons within five days of its issuing. The service of the summons is not in accordance with the Act of July 9, 1901. It is not necessary to consider the other exceptions. Now April 3, 1905, proceedings are reversed and judgment entered for the defendant (Peter Moyer). (See Act of the 11th day of May, 1901, P. L. 164.) NAGLE & SON vs. LEHIGH SAENGerbund. A verbal notice of the filing of a mechanic,s lien is not such a notice as is required by the twenty-first section of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 441. The act contemplates the service of a notice giving the court term and number and date of filing thereof. These requirements must be strictly complied with and the failure to serve such notice and file the affidavit within the time specified defeats the plaintiff's right of recovery In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Nagle and Son vs. Lehigh Saengerbund. No. 15 April Term, 1904. M. L. D. Motion to strike off mechanic's lien. Rule made absolute and mechanic's lien stricken off. Dillinger and Schwartz for Plaintiff. James L. Schaadt, M. C. L. Kline and Charles W. Kaeppel for Defendant. Trexler, P. J., April 3, 1905. In this matter the notice of the filing of the claim required by Section 21 of the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L. 441, was not given. It is alleged on the part of the claimant that verbal notice of the filing of the claim had been given. It is not such a notice as fills the demands of the Act in this regard. The act contemplates the service of a notice giving the Court term and number and date of filing thereof. In my view the requirements of Section 21 supra must be strictly complied with. The provisions of this section are mandatory and the failure to serve such notice and filing the affidavit within the time specified defeats the plaintiff's right of recovery. It is true that the Court in Gerrard, Gibson & Co. vs. Ecker 12 Dist. Rep. 332, did not take this view. I, however, agree with the conclusions reached in Walter & Son vs. Powell 13 Dist. Rep. 667, and in Compton vs. Samkey, 13 Dist. Rep. 535. If a proper notice had been served in this matter the claimant's rights have been preserved by a petition for an amendment. Wyoming Valley Lumber Co. vs. Turnbach, 30 C. C. Rep. 408. Now April 3rd, 1905, the rule is made absolute and the lien is stricken off. Meyer PerLEMAN vs. THE HARRINGTON-Monnett Co, Practice-Justice of the Peace-Short Summons. Where a justice of the peace issued a short summons and the bond required by the Act of July 12, 1842, Sec. 25, P L. 345, is not given by the plaintiff, the summons served is void and the proceedings will be reversed upon certiorari. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Meyer Perleman, Plaintiff in Error and Defendant below, vs. The Harrington-Monnett Company, Defendant in Error and Plaintiff below. No. 44 October Term, 1904. Certiorari. Proceedings reversed. Ira E. Seidel, James S. Biery and Arthur L. Biery with him, for Plaintiff in Error. C. D. Thomas for Defendant in Error. Trexler, P. J., April 3, 1905. There are a number of exceptions filed in this matter to the record but we need only consider the second, which is that "The transcript of the justice fails to show that security was entered for costs as required by a nonresident plaintiff upon the issue of a short summons." The Act of the 12th day of July, 1842, section 25, P. L. 345, requires that a bond be given before a short summons issue. The transcript and all the papers show this was a short summons. There is no record that any bond was given. The justice of the peace had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant because the summons served on him was void. For this reason the exception must be sustained. Now, April 3rd, 1905, proceedings are reversed and judgment entered for the defendant. (See Act of 11 May, 1901, P. L. 164.) C. A. GERNERT vs. FRANK FAUST. Practice--Justice of the Peace-Service of Summons-Act of July 9, 1901, P. L. 614. The Act of July 9, 1901, P. L. 615 is intended to furnish a complete and exclusive system for the service of suits and where the service is not in conformity with any of the methods provided by the Act, it must be set aside. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. C. A. Gernerd, Plaintiff in Error and Defendant below, vs. Frank Faust, Defendant in Error and Plaintiff below. No. 16, October Term, 1904. Certiorari. Proceedings reversed. Lewis and Schantz for Plaintiff in Error. Trexler, P. J., April 3, 1905. There are six specific exceptions filed to the record in this matter. The first is that "The record shows that the summons was not served in conformity with the Act of July 9, 1901, P. L. 614." The return is as follows. "Returned on oath. Served on the defendant August 29, 1904, by producing to him the original summons and informing him of the contents thereof. George F. Hering, Constable."' The act of 1901, supra, provides for the service of writs and repeals all acts of assembly inconsistent therewith, the act being intended to furnish a complete and exclusive system in itself. The service in this case is not in conformity with any of the methods provided by the said act. The defendant did not appear. The exception must be sustained. We need not "therefore consider the remaining exceptions. Now, April 3, 1905, proceedings are reversed and judgment entered for the defendant (C. A. Gernerd). (See Act of the 11th day of May, 1901, P. L. 164.) SMITH US. THE KEYSTONE SILK MILLS. Negligence-Master and Servant-Instructions to Minor Employee as to use of Machinery. A minor employee aged thirteen years, going along a passage way, struck a projection in the wall and bounded against the cog wheels of a warping machine and -** sustained the injuries complained of. The wheels of the machine were not revolving «^ rapidly and there were no latent dangers connected with its operation. The boy had not been warned of the dangerous character of the machine. He knew of the projections in the wall and had often seen them. Held, that the mere occurence of the injury to the minor did not raise a presumption of negligence and that it was not the duty of the employer to instruct him that if he struck the projection in the wall and bounded against the machine he would be injured and that a non-suit was properly entered. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. Claude M. Smith by his next friend Francis D. Smith and Francis D. Smith vs. Paul Gumbiner, trading as the Keystone Silk Mills. No. 9, October Term, 1904. Motion to take off non-suit. Motion overruled. M. C. Henninger for Plaintiff. James B. Deshler and W. E. Doster for Defendant. Trexler, P. J., April 3, 1905. Claude M. Smith, aged thirteen years and two months, was employed in the defendant's silk mills and following the line of his duty was required to pass through a narrow passage way along a line of machines which were used for warping. On the day the accident occurred he was going to the water closet and was in a hurry. There was a projection in the wall near one of the machines, the width of one brick. He struck against the projection, bounded across the aisle and his sleeve was in the cog wheels of the warping machine, which was not going at a fast rate. The boy knew of these projections in the wall and had |