Case ID: njl_97/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GEORGE DENT, RESPONDENT, v. BUTTERWORTH-JUDSON CORPORATION, APPELLANT.
    Submitted December 5, 1921
    Decided February 9, 1922.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    “The writ of certiorari in this case brings up for review the determination and rule for judgment, entered in the Essex County Court of Common Pleas, in a workmen’s compensation case. The defendant, George Dent, on March 11th, 1918, while working for the prosecutor, was injured by the bursting of a siphon containing picric acid, resulting in a facial disfigurement of black scars, keloids or claws, and the complete destruction of the sight of the left eye, which before the accident was almost gone, but usesful in making out outlines close at hand. The case was originally tried before the workmen’s compensation bureau; from that determination the prosecutor appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Essex county. The workmen’s compensation bureau awarded compensation for an injury partial in character and perma.nent in quality, equivalent to fifteen per cent, of total disability or sixty weeks, at $10 per week, equal to $600 and $65 attorney’s fees and costs of the proceedings.
    “The Essex County Court of Common Pleas awarded compensation for an injury partial in character and permanent in quality, equivalent to twenty per cent, of total disability, or eighty weeks, at $10 per week, equal to $800 — a counsel fee of $215 and costs of $24.89.
    “The prosecutor contends1 that the award should be for ten weeks’ compensation for the ten per cent, loss of the use of the eye affected by the accident and nothing should be allowed for the, disfigurement caused by the spattering of the acid on the head and face>of the defendant.
    “The seven reasons set down by the prosecutor for the reversal of the judgment entered in the Court of Common Pleas seem to cover only this point, i. e., error in the court’s finding, that there was a decreased salability of the defendant’s labor; however, all the reasons are argued in the prosecutor’s brief under one head, viz., there was no legal proof that there has been any decrease in the salability of defendant’s labor. It would serve no useful purpose to recite the facts as shown in the record. It is sufficient for us to say that the findings of the Common Pleas Court of Essex county are amply supported by the facts; that we are satisfied with the judgment entered in that court as a correct application of the statute to the facts.
    ‘‘Finding no error in the record, the judgment entered in the Essex County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed, with costs.”
    Por the appellant, Kalisch & Kalisch.
    
    For the respondent, John Y. Laddey.
    
   Pee Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance — The Ceiaxoellor, Chief Justice, Trexchard, Bergex, Mixturx, Kalisch, Katzexbach, Williams, Gardxer, Ackersox, Yax Busktrk, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Xone.