Case Name: JOHANNA FRIESE, PLAINTIFF-PROSECUTOR, v. NAGLE PACKING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1933-05-15
Citations: 110 N.J.L. 588
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHANNA FRIESE, PLAINTIFF-PROSECUTOR, v. NAGLE PACKING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 110
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
JOHANNA FRIESE, PLAINTIFF-PROSECUTOR, v. NAGLE PACKING COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued February 8, 1933
Decided May 15, 1933.
For the prosecutor-appellant, Pesin & Pesin (Mayer Pesin).
For the defendant-respondent, John Milton.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bodine, J.
The competent evidence supports the judgment of the Supreme Court upon a factual finding and, therefore, this court will not reverse. Zober v. Turner, 106 N. J. L. 86. The bureau, in conducting hearing under the Workmen's Compensation act, is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Pamph. L. 1918, p. 433, § 9. But it is bound to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties. Scalise v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 98 Id. 696. The legislature cannot be supposed to have intended that the substantial rights of the parties should be ascertained from hearsay.testimony. Although such testimony can be received by the bureau it can form no basis for an award. The substantial rights of the parties must be settled by such evidence as has always been regarded as competent in courts of law. Since the bureau is not liable to be misled by testimony which is not evidential the observance of the technical rules is of less importance than at a trial in the courts of law. The bureau cannot, however, disregard the fundamental rules of judicial proof in making awards. Its finding must be sustained by competent evidence.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chiee Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Van Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 11.
For reversal — None.