Case Name: WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY, CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY AND GIACINTO ANGELUCCI, RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1945-11-15
Citations: 133 N.J.L. 412
Docket Number: 
Parties: WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY, CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY AND GIACINTO ANGELUCCI, RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
WORTHINGTON PUMP AND MACHINERY CORPORATION, PROSECUTOR, v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY, CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUDSON COUNTY AND GIACINTO ANGELUCCI, RESPONDENTS.
Submitted October 2, 1945
Decided November 15, 1945.
Before Justices Case, Bodine and Pekskie.
Eor the prosecutor, James J. Carroll.
For the respondent G-iaeinto Angelucci, Louis Steisel and John A. Laird.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bodine, J.
The Bureau dismissed a petition for compensation. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, relying upon Mandel v. Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock, 132 N. J. L. 513; reversed, 133 Id. 311.
In September of 1943, the workman complained of a pain "in his right lower groin. The plant physician found that there was no evidence of a hernia at that time. He complained again on November 22d and November 30th, 1943, with the same result. He sought no outside medical aid till December 8th, 1943.
The statute R. S. 34:15-12 (x) provides for recovery in two instances. • The case does not fall within the first division and the second was not complied with. Primo v. Austin Co., 121 N. J. L. 518; Mandel v. Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., supra.
The proofs being in balance do not sustain the contention that there may have been an accident which aggravated a pre existing diseased condition. Furferi v. Pennsylvania Railroad,, 117 N. J. L. 508. The evidence was that after the alleged strain from swinging the hammer the five essentials of the statute did not occur. There must be conclusive proof thereof.
The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas will be reversed.