Norwich bulletin., 1914-06-16

sioner Williams Says Decision De- pends on Definition of Employer and EmpIoye-counsel to File Briefs. Compensation Commissioner J. J. Donohue M. D., of Norwich and Com- pensation Commissioner Frederick M. Williams, Waterbury. gave hearing here in the superior court room Mon day morning to the attorneys who rep resent the estate of the. late Sherih Preston B. Sib1ey, of Danielson, in the matter of a claim against the County of Windham and against the State of Connecticut-two separate actions for compensation under the act that became effective in January. The The claim Is brought for the widow of Sheriff Sibley, who died Jan. 5 as a result of injuries he received while boarding trolley car at Danielson on the afternoon of January 3. While Attorneys Charles B. Searls and Har- ry E. Back have started two actions, one against the county and the other against the state they seek to recover only from one or the other, not from both. A main point of contention is whether the county or the state is H. able to pay the compensation under the law if any is paid, for there is al- so a question involved as to whether the late sheriff was an employe as the term "employe" is used in the work mems compensation act in this state. State Raises Legal Question. Attorney W. A. King of willimantic, who appeared at Mondays hearing in the interest of Attorney General John H. Light, who was unable to be pres ent, made it very clear that the state is raising the purely legal question of whether the county and not the state is responsible in the matter of meeting a claim for compensation on account of the death of Sheriff Sibley. The county of Windham has long since dis claimed any liability. The county's interests were represented at Mondays hearing by Attorney Charles L.. Torrey, of this city. County Commissioner E. H. Hall of Windham was present at the hearing but only as a spectator in | terested in the proceedings.
 Seek Compensation From the State. For the present Attorneys Searls and Back are to press their action for compensation from the state, and the 1 first hearing was that of Monday. At 1 its opening after the compensation commissioners had suggested that the arguments in the claims in both ac- tions-state and county-be presented at the same time, MT. SearIs demurred, explaining that with MT. Back he had gone over that proposition with MT. | Torrey, representing the county and had arrived at an understanding that ! | that the case as he said he would | term it, might lie quiescent for the time being and abide the result of the hearing on the case against the state. Claims Filed as Two Cases. MT. Searls that he regarded the l claims as filed as two cases With Br. Back he would try one It might go to the superior court and eventual ly to the supreme court depending on developments. We have selected | the one that we regard as the case the one against the state. If you hear both cases at the same time you | must decide for us in one and against us in the other, and we might be put l to the necessity of appealing from a favorable decision to the superior court, eventually"
 | Will Settle Legal Joints. | It was indicated by what Mir. Searls | said that the claim for compensation in | the Sibley case is one that will lead to the clearing up of some points in the compensation act upon which there i is a wide difference of opinion among legal men of the state. The case against the state may bring this re- suit but if it should not there remains the case against the county, opening solutions sought. So the cases will re- main separate
 Sheriffs' Salary Was S2,5oo
 At Mondays hearing judicial notice was taken of the fact that Sheriff Sibley's salary was s2,500 a year, as fixed by a statute which also provides that he should take no other compen- sation excepting for the serving of civ il process papers. The hearing was somewhat informal. MT. King did not | insist on the counsel for Mrs. Sibley proving in the usual way, Mir. Sibley's death, the amount of his salary, etc.
 this being admitted.
 Four Witnesses Examined.
 Four witnesses were introduced
 Herbert B. Surrey, Dr. w. H. Judson
 Attorney E. L. Darbie and Attorne,
 Charles E. Searls. The three frs
 named are of Danielson. MT. Surrey
 saw the accident in which Sheriff sib' ley was injured and described it fl
 detail. pr. Judson was the physician
 who received the emergency call to at
 tend the injured man and first saw hin
 as he was being taken from the side
 walk to be carried into A. W. Williams
 store in Danielson. Attorney Darbi,
 was one of those who helped convey
 Mir. Sibley to the store and afterward.
 to his home.
 Brain Hemorrahee Followed Fall.
 Dr. Judson described MT. Sibley's in
 
 sponse to quesitnon by MT. King tha
 Sheriff Sibley suffered a hemorrahg,
 of the brain as a result of the shocl
 from the fall; that a hemorrhage diC
 not first occur and cause him to fall
 pr. Judson amplif1ed this statemen
 by saying that only 20 minutes befor, the accident he had talked with MT
 Sibley over the telephone and that tn,
 sheriff was brilliant and happy in hii
 conversation,
 Attorney Darbie told of assisting il
 carrying Mir. Sibley from the place O
 the accident and of receiving in hi
 interest a package of mittimuses-pa l of the state-that had fallen from hi.
 person when he was thrown by thu
 trolley car,
 Attorney Searis testified that -Sherif
 Sibley was on his way to MT. -Searls
 office here with mittimuses and tha
 they had an engagement to meet ant
 tax the board bill of the prisoners a
 the Windham county jail, as was theil
 custom every three months He mad, the engagement with MT. Sibley ovel
 the telephone on the morning of tn,
 accident at II o'clock,
 Commissioner Williams Statement After a hearing the witnesses, a brie proceeding, Commissioner Williams re
 marked that. as a lawyer, the thing . | in are found under Section 43 of th
 in are found undeh Section 49 of tn compensation act, where the definition