New Britain herald., 1916-08-25

if that one be one of it's own em-
 ployes." The judgment was af- l frmed.
 Actions for malpractice as effected l by Workmen's Compensation Acts Whether or not an injured employe who has received an award under Workmen's Compensation Act may bring a civil action in damages for malpractice of physicians in treating
 the injury is a mooted question. Two
 very recent opinions shed light on
 the proposition.
 Plaintiff in Ross V. Erickson Con-
 struction Co.,, 155 Pacific Reporter,
 153, was injured in the course of his | employment, and after hospital treat
 ment made claim and received an award under the Industrial Insurance Law. Later he brought action for malpractice of the surgeon supplied by the defendant. The Washington su- preme Court holds that plaintiff while in the hospital was in contemplation of law still in the employ of defendant, and that the injuries from malprac- tice could be properly compensated under the Industrial Insurance Law as an aggravation of the original injury
 The opinion of the court was deliv- cred by Judge Chadwick, and reads in part: Tt would seem that, having an original right to recover against the master for the consequence of mal- practice, and a present right to sub- init his condition for appraisement notwithstanding such malpra ctice, the respondents fall within the statute. T. does not merely deny a right of action, but abOlishes all civil actions and ali civil causes of action to which he might have resorted, as well as the Jurisdiction of the courts to entertain such causes'
 In Pawlak V. Hayes. 156 Northwest ern Reporter 464, the facts involved are very like these in the case supra. except that in the latter suit the action was brought against the physician The Wisconsin Workmen's Compensa- uon Act provides that in making cla1m under the act the employe as- signs to his employer all rights or claims for his injuries which the for mer may have against a third party.
 But 1t does not assign a cause or acton then not in esse," says Judge VlnJe, speaking for the Wisconsin Su- preme Court. Tt merely acts upon what Is in existence at the time the 'aWful claim is made. When the neg hgence of third party to the knowl- cage of the employe, who exercises or olnary diligence in respect thereto. in IerVehes, his right to> an election arlses-not before then. It was therc- lore competent for plaintiff when he hrSt learned of the negligence of the defendant, to elect to hold him and release his employer, or to hold his employer under the provisions of the Compensation Act"
 A self discharged jury-A novel scheme, which, if it were not unlaw- ful, would appeal to jur1es unable to agree, was adopted after an unsuc- cessful attempt to reach a verdict in a south Carolina case,-a prosecution in the mayors court in the town of Cheraw of c. L. Mcleod and L. H. Mcleod for violation of an ordinance.
 After the case was submitted to the jury, the mayor, attorneys, and spec tatOrs left the room, and the jury proceeded to consider the evidence. After a more or less lengthy delibera- ton, they. of their own accord dis persed. To allay possible anxiety as to the cause of their mysterious diss appearance, they left in the room a paper bearing the following legend: Being unable to agree in the case of c. l.. Mcleod, we have adjourned" The mayor accordingly ordered a mis- trial.
 On the subsequent trial of L. H. Me- Leod the defendant pleaded former jeopardy, but was convicted. An ap- peal resulted in an affirmance of the conviction. Town of Cheraw ". Me Leod, S8 Southeastern Reporter, 6.
 Judge Watts, in his opinion for the SUI reme court, says: "The fourth ex- ce ption raises the point: Could l.. H. MoLs3Ct' be put on trial again after the ~"ttao of the jury at former trial and wHs there error in not holding that tho action of the jury resulted