Case ID: nj_43/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee CueiaM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STAFFORD JONES, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. BAYONNE BARREL & DRUM CO., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
    Argued September 22, 1964
    Decided October 19, 1964.
    
      Mr. Isidor Ealisch argued the cause for appellant.
    
      Mr. Olive 8. Gummis argued the cause for respondent (Mr. Harvey A. Lieb, attorney).
   The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee CueiaM.

This is a workmen’s compensation case which came to us as of right because of a dissent in the Appellate Division. R. R. 1:2-l (b). The Division of Workmen’s Compensation, the county court, and the majority of the Appellate Division found for petitioner, albeit their factual theses were not concordant. We are not persuaded to disturb the judgment. It is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance —■ Chief Justice WeiNTRaub, and Justices Jaoobs, FRANCIS, Prootor, Haul, Sohettino and HaNe-MAN — 7.

For reversal — None.