The defendant employed the minor son of the plaintiff. The son 'told the defendant’s representatives that his father consented to his working for himself, but in fact bis father did not know of the defendant’s employing his son; and the latter was injured while in the defendant’s service, but, it is admitted, without any negligence on the part of the defendant or of its servants. The plaintiff sues for loss of services after and in consequence of the injury. For the services the son had rendered, compensation belonged to the father; but, as the loss of further services was caused by an injury which was not caused by the fault of the defendant, it cannot be held liable for such loss.

No error.