New Britain herald., 1916-08-25

fC scope Of the servants employment
 and rendered the master liable for
 the tort, f .'Uch were true, in almost
 every case WtHrC a man was working
 tor anOtECr, and while so employed
 should steal rom another, the master
 would be required to respond in dam
 ages for the tort, however foreign to
 his masters business such wrong
 may have been. * If appellee had
 traced the proceeds of the sale into
 the hands of Oleson M. Sakariason.
 he would have brought him within
 the rule, and could have sustained a.
 recovery against him. This he failed
 to do; henoe the Judgment against
 Oleson M. Sakariason cannot be sus-
 tained.'
 Worlmen's Compensation Act a
 Deprivation of Remedy Against Third Person.-According to the decision of the Washington Supreme court, in
 Peet V. Mills, 136 Pacific Reporter,
 he5, the workmens compensation act
 of that state superseded all former statutes relative to recovery by a servant for injuries occurring in the course of his employment, and no existing law gives the employe a right of action for such injuries against any person other than his employer.
 The same question arose in Northern Pacific Railway Company V, Mary A. Meese and the same statute was construed. The case was insti- tutcd in the United States District Court of Washington, W. D. (2O6 Federal Reporter, 222). Benjamin Meese, while engaged in his duties as an employe of brewing concern, was killed through the alleged negligence of the railroad company. Demurrer TO the complaint on the ground that the workmens compensation act gave right of action against the master only was sustained. This judgment was reversed by the United States Circuit Court Of appeals, 211 Federal Reporter, 254
 The United States Supreme court in 36 supreme court reporter, 223, re- verses the holding of the latter court. and upholds the ruling of the district court, Justice McReynolds stating: Tt is settled doctrine that federal courts must accept the construction of a state statute deliberately adopted by it's highest court.'
 The opinion of the Washington su- preme court in the Feet case, supra is quoted at length. An excerpt there from follows:
 By this appeal, we are again called upon to review the workmen's com pensation act of 1911 Claws 1911, C. "A, D. 345, 3 Rem. & Bal. code, ss 66O4-1 ct seq), under appellants that the act is applicable nly where recovery Is sought upon Inc ground of negligence of the en- ployer. The conclusion is evil dent that, in the enactment of this new law, the legislature declared 1t to be the policy of this state that every hazardous industry within the rUrview of the act should bear t1e burden arising out of injuries to its employees: and that it was the further policy of the state to do away with he recognized evils attaching to the 1 em edies under existing forms of law 1 nd to substitute a new remedy that | hould be ample. full, and complete, l eaching every oiury sustained by ! ny workman while employed in any uch industry. regardless of the cause f the injury or the negligence to hich it might be attributed. 70 say with appellant that the intent # the act is limited to the abolish nent of negligence as a ground of ction against an employer only is to ,vorlook and read out of the act and ts declaration of principles the i ,conomic thought sought to be crys- nllized into law--that the industry it. elf was the primal cause of the niury, and, as such, should be made 1 o bear it's burdens.'
 Liability of City for Negligence of case of Jones, admin strator, vs city of Richmond, SS outheastern Reporter, S2, affords an interesting example of the application # the rule whereby municipal cor oratiOns are made lia ble for the min sterial as distinguished from the pure v governm ental acts of their en- loyes. The driver of a wagon used