Norwich bulletin., 1917-03-24

:, MnsCH zs, HIT
 present. instance.
 TO sustain their contention that the injuries we're not received arising out of and in the course of employment, the the atterneys r lNr sns respondsaes M,nsr c,re Agricultural 1mpg. Co.,, Court of Ap- peals, B. W. c. Cases, 5D1, in which case a bicycle was kept and provided by an employer for the use of an em. the work Of other employees some six miles away. 1tNou1d appear in that case that the bicycle was pro- vfded rather for the purpose of talk mother during the work than to- take him from his home to the employ ment, and even though this bicycle was kept at his home and he rode from his home. to the place of ern- ployment, that was rather privilege allowed him than a part of his con- tract of hire. The real use for which the employer provided such bicycle ing his work of inspection in the course of his employment during working hours.
 Commented on Two Cases.
 4 The attorneys for the respondents also commented on two cases namely, ECrenfms FS s0aeStr Aeen e NetLfeIotu, 1 B. W. c. c. 160, and Walton vs.
 Tredegar Iron & Coal Company, 6 B. W. c. c. .5s2, both by the Court of Appeal of England, which they pre- sumed would probably be cited in support of the contention of the the sattorneys for the respondents ob- jected to the use of these cases In support of c1aimants' contentious on the ground that in the former case | + rrau <.s, a la which was used exclusively by em- pIoyees, and nobody else was permit ted to use it; and, also in the latter case where a boatman was drowned, the employer having furnished boat as a means of his crossing a river to his employment, objection was made to the use of said case on the ground that that (the boatl was his only means Of getting to his work.
 The objections of the respondents to the citation of these cases in sup port of the claimants position in the present instance, if seriously consid- cred, would place very narrow con- structien upon compensation laws. It whether an employee had two or three means Of transportation and he elect ed to accept one and lost his life in the course of such transportation, or whether he had but one means of transportation and met with fatal accident. The ultimate result so far as the injury is concerned, Is the same, and the difference in number of ways of transportation should have but little bearing in the case.
 In the case of Charles Henry, Jr. vs. Harold C.. Hawkins, cited by the re- spondents and decided October 9th, 1918, by the undersigned, there is a difference between that case and the case cited above there was no con- tract entered into by employer and employee to take care of any trans portation and it was simply a cour- tesy which was extended to the em- ployee on that occasion Respondents' Final Claim.
 The final claim of the respondents to compensation as the injuries re- ceived by these six men were not sus- tained by them as employees of Latin am 6 Crane and were not personal in- juries arising out of and in the course of their employment.
 The attorneys for the claimants take the position that the employers Latham & Crane, contracted with these six men first, that they should work for them; second, that they should work for them out of town wherever they said, as part of the contracts, and third, that they should be transported by the employers tc and from Stafford Springs; and that
  the contract of hire and employment In commenting on the question o | men going to and from their place oi iem s.1 ployment, oIle Bradbury says in hi 2d Ed, Page 33S,
 Generally it has been held tha | while an employee was on his em ployerS premises, or while on a, con veyance furnished by the employer tt convey his worl<men to and from tn. place of employment, the relation O master and servant still subsisted Decisions to this effect have beer made under the common law and em ployers, 1ia bility acts as well as un der workmenss compensation statutes When Employer is Liable. l And in the same volume on page 40> we read as follows:
 The rule under the common law l employers liability acts and work | mems compensation statutes seems u be that usually, an employer is no | liable for injuries to an employee be 1 fore he reaches or after he depart | from the employers premises, unles l the employee is riding on a convey I ance furnished by the employer an, | which conveyance is supplied unde the employer, as part of the eontrac | of employment"
 1 Honnold in his work on workmen' l Compens sation. Vol. l, page no, para 1 1 and from employment says:
 The rule has been established il I accordance with sound reason tha i the employers liability in such case depends upon whether the conveyanc
 has been provided by him. after th 1 real beginning of the employment, il compliance with one of the impliet I or express terms of the contract o 1 employment, for the mere use of tn employee, and is one which the en 1 ployees are required, or as matte 1 of right are permitted, to use by vir | tue of that contract. Pursuant t i this rule, the employee is in the cours of employment if he has a right to tn
 transportation, but not if it is grat uftous, or mere accomnodation-" :"
 To Support Hisf centeptiens. | In. support of his contentious Hon | mold cites the following cases:
 | Donovan. PIT Mass. 7s, N iE. 43l 1 Ann. Cas- 1s15C. ITS; Davies ;, l RhyTnney Iron Co.,, 16 Times Law Rer 32e; WhitbFead V. Arnold, s9 l.. i t105; Cane "; Norton HillfCoIliery Co n, r< on.