The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-11-28
NOVEL POINTS OF TIE LAW.

Close questions regarding the Applica-
ton Of tho wofkfncn's compensation
law TO Injuries 10 employees are pre-.
sented In the opinion Of the Appellate
Division Of the Third Department IN
DeFillipis w FsikenberG, In which
the court reversed an award OF this
State Workmen's Compensation Corn-
mission. In this ease the court ruled
that while the injury was accidental, II
arose In the course OF the employ mcnt
did not arise u OF" said employ
ment. The facts of the case were that
the claimant WAS looking through u
crack In "A retiring room to see where
an article had come from that struck
her when a girl In the adjoining room
thrust a pair Of scissors through the
OF the use Of her right eye. The court
said that while the injuries suffered by
the claimant must necessarily excite
the sympathies Of the ourt' the stat
ute does not permit a construction IA
vorable to her claim.
The court cited the following cases
in which rulings have been made in
other States and In England that the
injuries In question did not arise out
or tho employment. An employee
lost the sight OF an eye when a fellow
WORKMAN pointco Ivy Cat'eTo AZ nihi
and discharged the spring projectile.
striking him in tho eye: A maliciously
threw q piece Of iron at Il and struck
the eye of c, who was at work: work.
men as a practical Joke put a hook of
their employers crane through the neck
cloth Of q fellow workman engaged OF
the employers wharf and commenced
to draw him W through the warehouse.
He held on to the chains as long as
he could and then let 60. falling a con-
siderable distance and being seriously
injured a domestic servant while at
work was struck In the y by a child's
ball playfully thrown by IA fellow SER
want. the child's nurse. with h re-
suit that she lost almost completely the
sight OF the eye: claimant. having
washed her hands upon completing her
work. was struck and injured by a
piece of burlap thrown by the employees
at one another.
On the other hand the Supreme Judi
cial Court Of Massachusetts, held In
the matter of Reithel that under the
compensation act OF he State ar In
jury was one "arising out or - we'll a
"in tho course OF" his employment
where . mill superintendent on ordering
out q trespasser was shot and killed
by him. II not only being . part OF
the superintendent general duty e
order trespassers from the premises bu,
he having had special instructions &c
that effect In tho case OF the person
who fred the shot. after he had pre-.
viously appeared. annoyed an employees
and created a disturbance.
The court pointed out that tho cas
at bar IL quite d~ist!nguishable from stab
bling by a drunken stranger. q felonious
attack by a sober workman or ever
rough sport or horseplay by companions
who might have been expected to be al
work."
when the wage Garner cannot collect
his wages he Immediately becomes de-
pendent on the kindness OF others. He
must Immediately go borrowing and
therefore go Borrowing. Pc Rosser
c.. in Anderson vs.. Canaday. 81 Okla l75.
Commenting on n recent case tried
here Lap Notes says: "ln an action ir
New York city between two Americans
OF the h~yphenated variety owing allie
glance TO Powers now at war with each
other the defendant relied as a defence
on the proclamation Of a moratorium 10y
his sovereign. Needless to say. the plea
did not prevail. We wonder IL thi.
sorely pressed counsel ever contemplate,
the consequences which would 'ow from
the principle which he sought TO es,ab,
lish. The path OF neutrality is no
wholly strewn with roses as It Is. anC
II unnaturalized denizens in a neutral
state retained their belligerent status n.
to each other II would be better to 60 e
war and be done with IT,"
Quite recently a layman CAV vent e
his opinion OF lawyers with: The spec
tacle OF any lawyer favoring the proven
ton OF litigation is a joke. OF cours,
there are lawyers who honestly try e
keep their clients out OF court, but how
many can you narne" Which stagger
Ing inquiry suggests the story OF tn,
darky preacher who after having de
clared hat God made Adam out OF mu,
and set him against a fence to dry W.T.,
asked: WHO made the fence "E
yo' Is gw!ne tub AK sich questions as dat
sub" he replied. "yo' will upset all d,
foundamentlons Of de Gospel" Tnfor
tunatcly, however. doubters will asl
questions And. still more unfortunawly
they are often difficult to answer withou
the N!ndication of the doubt. As Ion,
as so many hopeless suits are instituted
so many useless appeals taken, so man,
vain petitions for reargumcnt p~resente,
and SO many opinions handed down will
some such refrain as I'VE have repeat
edly held" &c, the laymau's question
VIII be a reproach 10 the profession, sug
costing either incompetence or failure 4
appreciate the fact that the acme Of sue
cess as a lawyer is to keep the client GU
OF court. OF course there are client
who refuse to stay out OF court. and ",
are here reminded of one that sued
certain other man so often that his law
Yer In desperation finally advised him t.
stop suing the fellow and give him
good licking. which advice tho ohedien
client promptly followed and as prompt,
employed the same lawyer 10 appear 1,
the forthcoming action for assault ant
battery. The fact remains. however. tina
"A proper appreciation OF the functions o
an attorney at lava little more coun
sci and a littlo less advuracy-woul,
mean money in the pockets of the clients
fewer judicial opinions. decrease in In,
expense of maintaining the courts
greater respect for the law aud n happie
and more peaceful community generally
Nor would It necessarily mean less com
~pensation to the lawyers, Rut that o
course would cut no figure with an hon
est lawyer.-Ldm Notes.
An interesting state OF facts was dis
closed in o'Neill w. Central L1athe
Company. in which the New .Jerse,
courts were asked to decide the owner
ship of property seized in Mexico. Tn,
question in dispute was the title {,
certain hides claimed by the plaintiff
under one Martinez, the former owner
and by the defendant. Central Leathc
Company. under a title based on u seiz