Case Name: NICHOLAS SESSLER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM PETER, TRADING AS LUCAS PETER & SON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1916-10-03
Citations: 89 N.J.L. 722
Docket Number: 
Parties: NICHOLAS SESSLER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM PETER, TRADING AS LUCAS PETER & SON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
NICHOLAS SESSLER, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM PETER, TRADING AS LUCAS PETER & SON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued June 27, 1916
Decided October 3, 1916.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
"This was a certiorari to test proceedings under the Workmen’s ' Compensation act in the Essex County Common Pleas, in which judgment was entered for the petitioner. The facts are that Nicholas Sessler, on the 28tli day of Majr, 1914, was in the regular employ of William Peter, a carpenter, doing the duties usually pertaining to that trade. He was struck on the forehead with a piece of timber and ivas thrown down and rendered ■ unconscious. The court found that the injuries arose out of and in the course of the employment; that the petitioner ‘as a result of said accident is suffering from traumatic neurasthenia and possibly pachymeningitis, and that there is total and temporary disability resulting therefrom.’ The ground of attack is that the finding of facts and the determination of the trial court are not supported by and based upon legal evidence, but after reading the evidence in the case we are satisfied that it Avas permissible for the court to reach the conclusion stated, and under the case of Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. L. 72, this court accepts the findings of the Common Pleas Court upon the facts, if there he any legal evidence to warrant them, and in this case, there is such evidence. The judgment of the Common Pleas Court is therefore affirmed, with costs.”
For the defendant-appellant, William Pennington and Frederic G. Ritger.
For the petitioner-respondent, McDermott & Enright.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—.Tub Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Kalisoh, White, Terhune, Heppeniieimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.
For reversal—if one.