Norwich bulletin., 1918-01-12


 ble, especially as to the manner in which the injury actually occurred.
 James McCann, who was employed as fxer at the Goodyear cotton mills at the time of the injury to LeDuc, testified at the hearing that one-half hour previous to the injury he put on belt on the machine next to the one on which the injury to LeDuc was re- ceived, that to his knowledge there were no notices posted in the mill to the effect that employees were not to put belts on machines, and he admit ted that in mills in general it was a matter of common knowledge that em- ployes did replace belts without seek ing assistance from the fixers or the ] men who were supposed to do that work.
 The respondents claim that the in ] jury did not arise out of and in the i course of employment.
 A memorandum of decision is at tached and made a part of the finding and award.
 For the reasons set forth in memo <, randum it is found that the injury |, received by the claimant arose out of 1 and in the course of his employment and that he is entitled to compensa- tion.
 It is awarded that the respondents | shall pay to the claimant through his attorney compensation from April 24th, 1917, up to and including the date of | the hearing, with the exception of the two weeks (paragraph 8, together with, the medical, surgical and hospital services to the amount of $25O in the
 case of Dr. Overlook and $391 in the
 case of the Day Kimball hospital plus | the bill to be rendered by the hospital
 for the weekly dressings.
 The Commissioners Memorandum.
 In his memorandum of decision Com missioner Donohue says:
 The sole question to be decided 1T the present case is, did the injury
 which LeDuc received arise out of an6
 in the course of his employment?
 Elaborate briefs were submitted by
 the attorneys in the case and theil
 respective claims fully set forth.
 In referring to the facts in the case
 the attorney for the respondents il
 his brief states that at the time of tn,
 injury it was no part of the duty O
 the claimant to operate the double
 machine; that the duties of the claim
 ant did not bring him in contact witt
 the doubler machine or which he wa
 injured, nor was there any connection between his duties and the belt whicl drove the doubler machine. The at
 torney also states in his brief that i was the duty of the fNer to replac belts and that the claimant was ex
 pressly told by the ,fiXef to keen ava,
 from the doubler machine and not t
 touch it, and he states further tha the claimant testified that he woul not deny this and that F1agg and Nc
 Cam both testified as above All c this.,is largely true, but both Flag ! and McCann also testified that the , | and the respondent-employer kney , the belts were being put on by boy : and other employees at this mill an in mills in general, and that it was frequent practice to do these thing . instead of employees looking for a fix : CT to do it for them.
 Sought LeDuc's Assistance. l From the testimony it has bee 5 been found that LeDuc had been OF I erating this doubling machine o
 which he was injured up to midnie h ! at which time he had his lunch, an
 then Bibeault was put on the double $ machine and LeDuc was put on tt r can job, and that the belt on the dout l, Ter came off about 1.30 o'clock in tt Q morning, a very short time after B q beault began operations on it. It wa e the 5nost natural thing in the worl d wheA t5e belt came off the machir n for Bibeault to go to LeDuc, who hs y just previously been at work on Il nPsame machine, and seek his assist e ance in putting the belt on again It it would be fair to assume that LeDl T would probably know what the troub u was and how 10 remedy it, especial in view of the fact that the two bo, t on many previous occasions assiste S each other in doing the same thir a and succeeding each time before It replacing the belt. The respondents claim the injul d CD did not occur in the course of u 1T employment and CD it did not aro n out of the employment, and quote fro h John Chartres in Judicial Interpret; e tion of Compensation Laws as follow Il Page 137)
 | "(9) The employment is interpre ed 1l while the workman is doi1 i something entirely outside the emplo. l ment, whether in the employers inte est or in his own: CD by absen without leave where the employme1 l is continuous" Fl It is evident in the present case tn
 the claimant was not doing anythil
 i"outside the employment" It w |! strictly in the course of enploymer