livery of such articles was among the general duties of such employe, and there is no evidence of any person with authority from the employer having told him to deliver such articles, such injury was not sustained in the course of his employment.

Werner v. Rising Sun Brewing Co., 36 N. J. L. J. 364.

In Zabriskie v. Erie R. R., 86 N. J. L. 266, 92 Atl. 385, the Court of Errors and Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court and Common Pleas and held that the trial court was justified in finding that an accident on a public street arose out of and in the course of employment from evidence showing that it was a practice known to and assented to by the employer for the workmen to cross a public street to a toilet which was the only one convenient. The court said in effect that it was not a danger of an ordinary member of the public crossing the street on his own business but was the subjection of the employe to that danger by the condition of his employment.

(See also notes on "Risks Common to Public," page 15.)

In Nevich v. D. L. & W., 90 N. J. L. 228, 100 Atl. 234, the petitioner was using a barrel as one of the implements of his employment; two strangers carried it away a short distance and petitioner was directed by his immediate superior, one of the servants of his employer to recover it and when petitioner approached the strangers they threw the barrel down and assaulted him, severely injuring him: Held accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

(See also "Injury by Assault," page 26.)

In Horn v. Arnett, 103 Atl. 366, a Common Pleas holding that the act of a man in getting on a wagon used to haul brick and riding back for another load was an act connected with his employment as was a holding that a death caused by an accident while so doing was by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

A workman found to have met his death at a place where the duties of his employment did not take him is not shown

to have met death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Smith, Admr., v. Crescent Belting & Packing Co., 37
N. J. L. J. 292.

Evidence showing that a man required to guard a gas trench was found dead from gas asphyxiation with no signs of violence was held to justify the inference of death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Manziano v. Public Service Gas Co., 40 N. J. L. J. 262.

The mere fact that some compensation was paid to a workman is sufficient to support a finding that there was an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

Harley v. Walsall Wood Colliery Co., Ltd., 8 B. W. C.
C. 86.

A finding, that a mate under no duty to go ashore, who did so with the captain and who at the time to return, at the captain's direction, endeavored to get a boat but in so doing was drowned met his death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, was upheld.

Harman v. Crow & Sons, 9 B. W. C. C. 88.

A claimant, showing that a stable-boy was found dead in a stable at a time when he had no work to do there, it appearing that he had been in the habit of teasing the horses, was properly held not to have made out a case of death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Jay v. Phillips, Mills & Co., Ltd., 9 B. W. C. C. 242.

Where a workman is found drowned and the circumstances of the drowning are unknown there is no evidence justifying a finding that there was an accident arising out of the employment.

Stewart v. M'Intyre, 9 B. W. C. C. 430.

In Armstrong v. Greyson & Co., 9 B. W. C. C. 468, the evidence was considered and it was held that the finding of the trial court that a workman found dead had met his death in going to a place to relieve nature and that accident arose

out of and in the course of employment was held supported by evidence.

A workman sent to deliver a parcel, finding nobody at home sat on top of stairs. About half an hour later he was seen still sitting there as if asleep. Shortly thereafter he fell into areaway and was killed. It was held that the evidence did not show that this accident arose out of the employment as it was not shown that the fall had any relation to the employment.

Kettler v. McKay & Ryland, 9 B. W. C. C. 544.

Where there is nothing to suggest how the accident occurred it has not been proved that it arose out of the employment. Hence the unexplained disappearance of a seaman at sea does not justify an award.

Lynch v. Crown S. S. Co., Ltd., 9 B. W. C. C. 652.

In Peer v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 39 N. J. L. J. 242, compensation for double hernia or hydrocele (as to which it was the physicians disagreed) was denied. The judge said: "Too much rests upon the simple statement of the petitioner himself, which rather vaguely tends only to show that because of the accident he suffered from a rupture. It is not at all clear, as a matter of physical condition, that the petitioner suffered from either a rupture or hydrocele as a result of the accident. Too much is left to surmise and guess to connect the conditions of hydrocele or rupture, whichever it may be, with the accident that occurred on July 14, 1915. The burden of proof upon the petitioner in this respect has not been discharged by him."

In O'Connell v. D. V. G. Mfg. Co., 41 N. J. L. J. 207, the evidence was held to justify an inference that a condition of inguinal hernia which existed was a disability which was by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

In Hart v. Wilhelm, 41 N. J. L. J. 13, a workman who met injury on a railroad track while endeavoring to cross to go to a toilet was held to have met injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.

In the absence of evidence that decedent who was killed on a railroad track, was forced by his employment to go on

the track, if there was an accident it was not shown to have arisen out of the employment.

Siemtkowski v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 92 Atl. 909.

Id. In Course of Employment.

Where there is no evidence showing the exact time or place of an accident, it cannot be said with certainty that it arose "in the course of" a workman's employment.

Steers v. Dunnewald, 89 Atl. 1007, 85 N. J. L. 449, 89
N. J. L. 601, 99 Atl. 345.

In a case where a workman left his work and went to a fellow employe to ascertain the time, and on the way back to his work was killed by the falling of the roof, it not having been shown why the man had gone to ascertain the time, it was held the accident was not shown to have arisen in the course of the workman's employment.

Warren v. Hedley's Collieries Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 172.

In Risdale v. S. S. Kilmarnock (Owners of), 8 B. W. C. C. 7, a chief engineer on a ship was held not to have gone outside the scope of his employment by remaining on ship and carrying out captain's orders although the captain was deviating from the usual course to fishing grounds to notify warships of the presence of enemy mines.

Id. Acceleration of Disease.

Where a workman with a predisposition to apoplexy was afflicted therewith while raking a fire under a steamship's boiler, his injury was held to be by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Broforst v. S. S. Bloomfield (Owners), Gordon's W.
C. Rep. (1913) 594.

Death of a workman who had suffered from rupture, resulting from strangulation of hernia brought on by the strain of his employment (stoking), was by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Scales v. West Norfolk Farmers' Manure & Chemical
Co., Gordon's W. C. Rep. (1913) 165.

See also page 10.

Id. Injury by Accident.

Where a disease develops after an injury the burden is upon the claimant to prove that the disease resulted from the injury.

Feldman v. Westinghouse Elec. and Min. Co., N. J. L.
J., Comp. Emp. Liab. Cases 58, 36 N. J. L. J. 48.

Where the attending physician refuses to state that death was caused by the accident, there is no basis for an inference to that effect by the court.

Reimers v. Proctor Pub. Co., 89 Atl. 931, 85 N. J. L. 441.

In Ferid v. John Roebling & Sons Co., 38 N. J. L. J. 26, the testimony of a workman (a foreigner who had difficulty in speaking English) to the occurrence of an accident that no one else saw, was accepted despite some contradictions and an award was made.

In Brady v. Hahne & Co., 38 N. J. L. J. 316, it was held that it had not been shown that a condition of floating or displaced kidney had been brought about by the accident.

In Collinson v. New Jersey China Pottery Co., 39 N. J. L. J. 231, a death from gangrenous peritonitis eleven days after an alleged accident was held not to have been proved to have been due to such alleged accident.

In Ervey v. Dickisson, 40 N. J. L. J. 275, it was held that the claimant had not sustained the burden of showing hernia by accident. The court. said that it was not enough to establish as a fact that a hernia is co-incident with a fall or with lifting, but it should be clearly established that the fall or lifting was the cause of the incapacity alleged.

In Doyle v. Canadian Car & Foundry Company, 41 N. J. L. J. 743, a claim based on alleged Tri-Nitro-Touluene (T. N. T.) poisoning was denied for lack of proof that death arose from accident.

Id. Temporary Disability.

In Kendall v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co., 38 N. J. L. J. 309, the petitioner was held suffering a temporary disabil