Tbe plaintiff was over fourteen and under sixteen years of age at tbe time be was employed by tbe defendant to work in its factory, and also at tbe times be was injured while working as such employee. Before employing tbe plaintiff, tbe defendant, in good faith, procured, relied upon and placed in its files a certificate issued by the welfare officer of Randolph County, in accordance with tbe rules and regulations prescribed by tbe State Child Welfare Commission, authorizing tbe employment, C. S., 5034. Tbe employment was, therefore, not wrongful or unlawful. For this reason tbe decision of this Court in McGowan v. Mfg. Co., 161 N. C., 192, 82 N. C., 102, is not applicable to tbe instant ease. Tbe fact that the plaintiff was required to work and did work, during bis employment, ten hours per day, in violation of tbe statute, C. S., 5033, has no causal connection with bis injuries. It is only when tbe employment of a child is unlawful because in violation of tbe statute, that such violation is in itself evidence of actionable negligence; when tbe employment was not in violation of tbe statute, but tbe employee is required to work and does work more than eight hours per day, and is injured while at work, there must be evidence tending to show that tbe violation of tbe statute was a proximate cause of tbe injury; otherwise tbe plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for injuries suffered by him while engaged in tbe performance of bis duties.
There was no evidence tending to show that defendant was negligent in tbe location within its factory of tbe baling machine, or that there was any defect in tbe elevator. After carefully considering all tbe evidence *353appearing in tbe record, we cannot escape tbe conviction tbat plaintiff’s injuries were caused by bis own negligence, and not by any negligence on tbe part of tbe defendant. Tart v. R. R., 202 N. C., 52, 161 S. E., 720.
There was error in tbe refusal of defendant’s motion for judgment dismissing tbe action as of nonsuit. For tbat reason, tbe judgment is