There is a dispute as to whether Plum or the partnership was the employer of claimant. The Board found that he was an employee of the partnership and the evidence sustains that finding. The Board also found that the policy of insurance covered carpentry only and that at the time of claimant's injuries he was employed and had been employed solely as a mason. The policy excluded all work except that of carpentry. The evidence sustains the determination of the State Industrial Board. Decision affirmed, without costs. All concur.