Norwich bulletin., 1915-09-02
ON IMPORTANT POINT
commissioner Donohue Awards Compensation to Employe
Hur Through Another's Fooling-In Case of Theodore
B. Ely Against M S. Brooks & Sons of chester-Em-
ploye Lost an Eye

dam and stayed there until June 2;
f fsnS' S wnen again went to the Hart
7 have read the foregoing and IL 4
a true statement -
(Signed)
THEODORE NEWTON ELY"
J. H. ORDwAY.
June %, 1915
Girl Who Threw Wire.
Mary zanardi, the girl who threw
the piece OF scrap wire, also made AZ.
ndavit as follows: -
Ny name is Mary Zanardi. / live
| On Nortn Main street, Chester. Conn
aFd work in the threading denartnSert
we PICK up screw eye with right hanS
ana put 1t IN pointing machine. fhen
| remove 1t with left hand and ntt r.
IN tnreaoing machine and then take IL
out and drop it in box in front Of ne
After the box is full Clarence Spencer
eahes IL into securing room.
one DAY along in March sometime
l mink l was working at No. 10 ma
chine and Louise Castelli on the wsv
out 70 the dressing room stopped and
spoke to me for few minutes WhiIe
she was there picked up a scrsn Of
wire ana tossed it over at the bovs
WORKING on the "kickers." These boys
were Newton Ely and George Evans
! Just tossed the piece of scrap in
t torM1ust Kind of to attract their at
donG Know what, and glanced or and
nit Ely in the eye He didn't 80
much attention to it and kent or
working. A little later in the dsv
i,i Fly passed my bench and said. you
nlL me In the hot
1t kind of laughing like. I didn't saw
anything, but laughed with him ovsr
1t. After that he never mentioned II
to me again.
have read the foregoing and it is
a true statement.
Witness: <4E>-NAHDl'
(Signed)
]. H. ORDwAY.
June 23, 1915. -.-.-.
Saw the Accident,
Louise Castelli, who was vvorkins
with Mary Zanardi at the time tha in
Jury occurred to Ely, also mada
statement as to the knowledge she
p pS OF the injury. and which Is
MY name is Louise castelli. I live
at chester, Conn, and work at the
splndles for M. s, Brooks q Sons
nave worked here for three years and
naI. l generally work on the fonrth i
'pInoie from the end. Somewhere
dong the end of March one dav vas
IN my way from the dressing room
mo when I got to the end of The
rame ! stopped to speak a minute 70
nary Zanardi and while was there
ne picked up little piece of wire and
'iE,s a II over at Newton Ely. to get
nm 10 turn around, just to draw his
.ttention. She was going to make
aces at him or something like that
ne wire hit something 1 think n |
lust nave struck the belt Newton
nrned around and tried to dodge H.
u, ut couidn I; He put his hand to his :
ye ana said: You hit me in the
We up? We thought that II was a i.
ood joke and Mary and I laughed J
pout II. Newton commenced to work Z
sam, and / went back to my work. !
ater IN the day I was weighing my :
nd said that did hurt" and went 5
long. After that day he didn't saw
nything more about it,
nave read the foregoing and if 8
a true statement
s., LOUISE cAsTELL1"
]. H, ORDWAY.
June %, 1915" I
SSttOH SH GdTklnQs
The attorney for the respondent has q
ted a number of cases especiaIJyI d
ose from the British Worlrnen;s n
act, and states that ths
!est1on Is. whether an injury sus r.
lned by an employee as the result ~ cI
n or play or sport or larkine arises Il
7 or the employment. and then con- n
nds that it does not So far as W
9 employe himself is Concerned in W
e case at bar the mi, l. | -
surf or FUN or play or sport or II
king on his part, nor is il due To n
circumstances or any condition | W
llch could have been avoided bv him ST
the time that the injury occur pl
The respondent also states. and al
lily so states. that as the workmen's ST
npensauon act is so new in the to
NED states it is difficult to find ad- SC
Iticated cases on the matter, and IL
Is number of decisions found un-
:. the British Workmen's CONNER CT
ion act and quotes the words of tn
leI Justice Rugg in the McNicoI ca
'e decisions of Eng tn
I courts before the adoption of our
are entitled to weight" But
ST OF the decisions quoted by the ..
orney Tor respondent differ in some IN
terlal way from the case we have ca
-hand' and even though they were ne
re nearly parallel they are older pc
islons, and as compensation laws uSo;
In the line of progressive Iegisla. or
l, naturally the more recent de- ne
ons- L should say, would be more pc
ongly persuasive. ap
ris
Cases Cited. an
4 the Fitzgerald VS.. Clarke & Son a
cited by the respondent. that is
ase some seven years old and con- the
,r1ng some of the radical changes gu
compensation ideas would saw thai loo
lslon would hardly deserve the of
snt or a more recent case. besides wo
Facts in that case ara SOMEWHAT ths
erent from the one before us for by
sion because the injury was cans the
~ the tortious act of fellow work- !
ana 1t would appear that they Of
ful grown men who should have a
wn better. thereby creating an nm me
ected danger which a contract Of knc
Ioyment could not have contem to
ed. tiol
the turniss VS.. Cartside a. 60 vok
Is. b. w. c. c. the injury was EN-
!. boy who was himself engaged in a q
ing or fooling with the cog wheaIe the
machine. and he was doing this jur,
essly contrary to the orders of HE OF
loyer, SO that there would hardiv
any parallel in that particular ~
lother case quoted in that os c,oia uno