Norwich bulletin., 1914-07-17
DANIELSON AND PUTNAM NEWS.


 l.sibley vs the State of Connecticut. i This case is claim for compensation for the complainant on account of the death of her husband. Sheriff Preston B. Sibley, as the result of an accident 1 that occurred while he was engaged in 1 the discharge of the duties of his of- 1 fee. The brief contains an interest ing discussion of various phases of the cases as so far developed, especially I in relation to the question of the sher- ! if having been an employe of the state under the terms of the compen- sation act and as to whether he was ] a state or county officer. Excerpts l from the brief follow:
 The sheriff as a state ofacer-Ihe term state officer" as here used should not be confounded with like words as they appear in the opinion Of the courts in discussing the question whether person for certain purposes 1 is an officer or an employe-
 i In the Employ of the State. l It would seem that there can be no i doubt that sheriff is in the employ l of the state because state officers are ] those whose duties concern the state at large or the general public, although I exercised within definite limits and to whom are delegated the exercise of I, a portion of the sovereign power of the state."
 1 The above definition completely de- scribes and defines the position of sheriff in the state of Connecticut. | His duties, although exercised within 1 the definite limits of the county, con- cern the state at large and to him l is delegated the exercise of a portion of the sovereign power of the state. Upon the question of whether the sheriffs position is 8 state position, | the opinion of the governor Of Rhode | Island by the supreme court justices of that state in the Newport police commission matter is quoted, that l opinion setting up the distinction rec l ognized in all of them is between off cers whose duties are wholly of To- cal nature and officers appointed for a | particular locality, but yet whose du- ties are of general or public nature. | When they are of the latter character, 1 they are state officers, whether the l legislature itself makes the appoint | ment or delegates it's authority to the municipality"
 ! Definition of Employer. | Passing on to the next question, which is, ''Is the state of Connecticut an employer in the case under consid- eration?' no one need go further than l the definition of employer in the work mems Compensation law of Connecti- cut. section 43, where, eliminating ir- relevant material for the purpose of this case. it defines employer" as fol- 1 lows: Employer shall mean-tnc state l and any public corporation within the l state using the services of another for pay" Now it cannot be denied that the state of Connecticut used the services of it's sheriff for pay and it comes wholly and entirely within the definition Of employer in said section 43
 Employe Defined.
 "Employe" is likewise defined in the workmen's compensation act as fol- lows: "Employe shall mean any per son who has entered into or works under any contract of service or ap- prenticeship with an employer.
 "A Person Under Any Contract"
 It will be argued by opposing inter-
 ests that sheriff is not under con-
 tract with his employer, and numer-
 ouss cases doubtless will be cited to
 sustain that position, but these de-
 cisions are not illuminating upon the
 subject under consideration. for they
 are rendered in connection with cases other than workmen's compensation
 cases. It will be observed that the definition in the Connecticut compen-
 sation act is a person under any con-
 tract.
 The definitions of an employer an6
 of an employe must be read together
 and harmonize. An employer pre-
 supposes an employe and vice versa It IS absurd to assume that man If acting in the role of employer ant
 yet has no one whom he employs Un- der the definition of employer" al used in the act if the state used the services of Sheriff Sfbley for pay, i was his employer and the sheriff it; employee: consequently a person whose
 services are being used for pay mus , necessarily be working under a con,
 tract of service within the definition of employe Any other definition wou1t render the last definition an absurd ity
 Intent of Compensation Act. | The intent and spirit of the Con necticut Workmen's Compensation ac is to provide aid, during disability, fo the injured and assistance for the de
 pendents in case of death. The in 7 jured employe who happens to hav } his employment through a quasi-con
 tract in connection with a public of
 flee needs the compensation just a
 much as the injured employe who ha,
 his contract apart from a public offic r and the same is true of the dependent
 of employees whose employment come ! through public offices.