:] The examiners were no doubt employed by the University of London, and the papers were prepared by them in the course of their employment. But, in order that s. 5, sub-s. 1 (b), should be applicable, the examiners must have been "under a contract of service or apprenticeship"; and accordingly the plaintiffs contend that the papers were prepared by the examiners in the course of their employment under a contract of service, and that, therefore, the copyright in the papers belonged to the University of London. The meaning of the words "contract of service" has been considered on several occasions, and it has been found difficult, if not impossible, to frame a satisfactory definition for them. In Simmons v. Heath Laundry Co. [FN37], in which the meaning of these words in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, was discussed, Fletcher Moulton L.J. pointed out that a contract of service was not the same thing as a contract for service, and that the existence of direct control by the *611 employer, the degree of independence on the part of the person who renders services, the place where the service is rendered, are all matters to be considered in determining whether there is a contract of service. As Buckley L.J. indicated in the same case, a contract of service involves the existence of a servant, and imports that there exists in the person serving an obligation to obey the orders of the person served. A servant is a person who is subject to the commands of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. A person who is employed by a company at a fixed annual salary to supply weekly articles for a periodical is not a servant within s. 209 of the Companies Consolidation Act, 1908: In re Beeton & Co. [FN38]; nor can a visiting physician of a hospital who, for an annual salary, undertakes to exercise his judgment, skill, and knowledge in determining whether a patient can safely be discharged be properly described as a servant: Evans v. Liverpool Corporation. [FN39]In Byrne v. Statist Co. [FN40] the meaning of the words in s. 5 of the Copyright Act, 1911, was considered in the case of a person, permanently employed on the editorial staff of a newspaper, who was specially employed by the proprietors to translate and summarize a speech. He did the work in his own time and independently of his ordinary duties, and it was held that in doing so he did not act under a contract of service. In the present case the examiner was employed to prepare the papers on the subject in respect of which he was elected or appointed examiner. He had to set papers for September, 1915, and January and June, 1916, and his duty also comprised the perusal of the students' answers, and the consideration of the marks to be awarded to the answers. For this he was to be paid a lump sum. He was free to prepare his questions at his convenience so long as they were ready by the time appointed for the examination, and it was left to his