accident takes place and the time when it occurred. Fitzgerald v. Manchester Liners, Ltd., [1910] A. C. 498, 500; McNicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497, 102 N. E. 697, L. R. A. 1916A, 306; Bryant v. Fissell, 84 N. J. Law, 72, 86 Atl. 458, 460; Larke v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 90 Conn. 303, 97 Atl. 320.

A park caretaker was acting within the scope of his employment, where he was mowing grass on the street outside the park area, according to custom and under directions of the park commissioners, and it appeared that the work was within the scope of the work authorized by a city ordinance. Superior v. Indus. Com., 160 Wis. 541, 152 N. W. 151, 8 N. C. C. A. 960. Accidents and injuries held to have been in the course of employment: Where an employé who had gained permission to ride in his employer's elevator was thrown against the opposite wall of a hall in getting off, which accident caused a strangulated hernia. Herrick v. Employers' Liability Assurance Co., Ltd., 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 122 (decision of Com. of Arb., affirmed by Indus. Acc. Bd., also by Sup. Jud. Ct., 217 Mass. 111, 104 N. E. 432). Where the employé, a chocolate packer, was obliged by her employer to work in a packing room where the temperature ranged from 60° to 65° Fahr. and facial paralysis, developing gradually, resulted from the employment conditions. Dalton v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. Ltd., 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 231 (decision of Com. of Arb.). Where the employé received a fatal injury while cranking a coal delivery wagon, the strain of his effort in turning the crank causing a small blood vessel to break in the pial membrane of the brain. Farrell v. Casualty Co. of America, 2 Mass. Wk. Comp. Cases, 423 (decision of Com. of Arb.). Michigan. Where a section foreman was run over by a train. Papinaw v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. (Mich.) 155 N. W. 545. Minnesota. Where a teamster employed to deliver furniture was driving along the street with a load of furniture, and was killed by a heavy load of steel beams which broke the hoisting apparatus on a building under construction and fell upon him. Mahowald v. Thompson-Starrett Co. (Minn.) 158 N. W. 913. New York. Where an employé worked continuously for 21 hours, except 11⁄2 hours off for meals, during which time he had to climb 216 steps three different times, besides being on his feet most of the time, and was found dead in his chair in a saloon a half hour after quitting, death being due to angina pectoris. McMurray v. J. J. Little & Ives Co., 3 N. Y. St. Dep. Rep. 395. New Jersey. Where a workman with two others was pulling a hand chain connected with a block operating a mechanism which caused a lifting chain to pass through the block and lift a steel girder, and the lifting chain became clogged, and, being forced through, split the block, and the workman was struck and injured. Scott v. Payne Bros. Inc., 85 N. J. Law, 446, 89 Atl. 927. California. Where a bowling alley has the pins set up in its alleys by boys, who work irregularly as they may happen to be present and needed, and who receive as pay 25 per cent. of the sum collected from the games which they respectively serve, and such boys are injured while setting pins. Weaver v. Eyster & Stone, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 563. Where a night watchman, while making his rounds through the premises, fell through an opening in the floor

to the floor below, and was killed. Carter v. Hume-Bennett Lumber Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 42. Where an employé was directed to polish brass rails in the engine room of a vessel, and went inside the railing the better to perform his task, although going inside the rail was attended by some danger, and was injured by falling into the machinery. Rose v. North Pacific Steamship Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 57. Where a physician, hired to give medical treatment to incapacitated employés of a manufacturing concern, was injured while returning from a visit to an ailing person who he had been led to believe was an employé of such concern, but who, in fact, had not yet been put upon the pay roll, though assigned to a job. Getzlaff v. Enloe, 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 18. Where a janitor, without specific instructions, puts up shelves for his greater convenience, and in preparing the shelving uses a band saw and sustains injuries, consisting in the loss of a thumb and finger; such service being one which any employé might reasonably perform, even in the absence of specific instructions, and the performance of it being incidental to his duties. Meaddows v. Smith Bros., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 344. Where a "spieler," whose duties were to attract and persuade the crowd to attend his employers' amusement show, was bitten and poisoned by a "Gila monster" he was exhibiting. Merritt v. Clark & Snow, Inc., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 983. Where the employé engaged by a corporation to inspect the work of a general contractor in the construction of a tunnel, upon the lights going out, went into the transformer house to ascertain what the trouble was, it appearing that, although he had no knowledge of electricity, his duties required him to report any unusual condition he might find, and was accidentally killed by unprotected wires. Duden v. City and County of San Francisco, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 1067. Illinois. Where an employé, engaged as a wagon washer, had cranked automobiles at the instance of the machinist, and a number of times in the presence of the foreman, without objection, and was injured while so cranking the machine. Cromowy v. Sulzberger & Sons Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 37. Where a miner working in the mines inhales poisonous gases which cause his death. Giacobbia v. Kerno-Domewald Coal Co., Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 196. Where an employé, whose duty and custom it was to do whatever was found necessary to be done in a shop, was injured in the performance of his work. Whaley v. Hudson, Bulletin No. 1, Ill., p. 186. Connecticut. Where the claimant's husband, an insurance collector and agent, was run down and killed by an automobile when about to board a car for the purpose of keeping an appointment and making a collection, after having just left another house where he collected. McKay v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 380. Where a watchman aggravated the pain in a frozen toe by stubbing it, and, becoming unconscious, fell on the stone floor, sustaining bruises of the back which developed into an abscess, causing disability. Dorrance v. New England Pin Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 24 (affirmed by superior court on appeal). Where a church sexton, part of whose admitted duties was to preserve order on the church premises, was injured by stumbling over a wheelbarrow' while going to stop a fight between two boys on the grounds. Loveland v. Parish

ployer has acquiesced, though they are not done in a strict performance of the employé's duties.22 An employé is not, like a part of a

of St. Thomas Church, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 14. Where an iron bar fell on the workman's foot while he was taking an inventory for his employer on a holiday. Reese v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 154. Ohio. Where a father and his son were employed by a land company, the father's duty being to care for a small barn and the horses stabled therein, to feed and clean them and hitch them up for the farm foreman, milk the cows, mow the lawns, and do other work as he was directed to do by the officers or foreman of the land company, and the son's duty being to take care of a large barn, in which were stabled about 36 horses and a Jersey bull, it being the son's duty to feed and care for the stock, clean the stable, and do anything he was directed to do by the officers of the land company or its foreman, and in the performance of their respective duties the father and son occasionally assisted each other with the knowledge and acquiescence of the land company and its officers, and the father was found unconscious and fatally injured in the barn of which the son had supervision, his ribs being broken and breast crushed. White v. Scioto Land Co., vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. Federal. Where the employé, with others, was furnished living quarters on a boat by the government, and fellow employés who had been on shore were returning for the night, and decedent started to get them in a small boat, and was drowned. In re House, Jan. 1914, Op. Sol. Dept. of L. 325. England. Where a ship's watchman was found drowned in the dock, the ambit of his employment covering both the ship and the quay. Richardson v. Ship Avonmore (Owners of), (1912) 5 B. W. C. C. 34, C. A.

Accidents not in course of employment: Where the members of a partnership entered into a contract with a person to install certain machinery at his own expense and one of the partners living at the place of business aiding in unloading a wagon containing machinery, billed to the contractor, and was accidentally injured while so doing. Anderson v. Perew, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 736. Where an employé, after receiving a slight injury, to which bandages soaked in turpentine were applied, accidentally set fire to the bandages while lighting his pipe. Isaacson v. White Lumber Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 819. Where the claimant had a blister form on his index finger while about his employment, and subsequently, while mending a pair of shoes at home, the awl which he was using slipped and penetrated the finger, and blood poisoning resulted. Palmeri v. Greist Mfg. Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 669. Where the medical evidence, though conflicting, tended strongly to show that indigestion and gastritis, from which the claimant was suffering, were probably never due to muscular strain, as claimed by the workman and his physician. Graves V. Connecticut Mills Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 657.

22 Where an employé of a "scenic railway" in an amusement park goes up on a framework to look for a hat lost by a passenger, it being the proprie

machine operated by him, fixed to precisely the mechanical movements he must perform in order to discharge his industrial function. He may do whatever a human being may reasonably do while in the performance of his duty without such acts placing him outside of the course of his employment.23 When an injury arising from a risk of the business is suffered while the employé, though not strictly in the line of his obligatory duty, is still doing something incidental to the performance of his work, in going to or from the work or in the necessary intervals of a discontinuous employment, he will ordinarily be entitled to compensation.24 Other necessary tor's custom to allow such practices for the accommodation of patrons and so that his employés may secure rewards, and while so doing the employé is accidentally struck by a car and killed, the accident happened in the course of his employment. Lane v. Joyland Co., Inc., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 872. Where a stableman required to act as watchman and protect his employer's property against intruders, it being situated where trouble might occur, although the employer had neither authorized nor forbidden him to carry or use a pistol for that purpose, was accidentally shot while cleaning a pistol which he had procured for his own protection in the performance of his duties, the accident arose in the course of the employment. Benson v. Hutchinson C., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 901.

23 Bode v. Shreve & Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 6.

Where a workman's hand was crushed when he attempted, while engaged in operating a triphammer, to remove a tin can placed on the lower die by a bystander, his injury arose in the course of his employment, though the bystander placed the can on the die for fun, in which the injured workman took no part. (Workmen's Compensation Act, § 1) Knopp v. American Car & Foundry Co., 186 Ill. App. 605.

24 Mann v. Glastonbury Knitting Co., 90 Conn. 116, 96 Atl. 368; (St. 1911, § 2394-10) International Harvester Co. v. Industrial Commission, 157 Wis. 167, 147 N. W. 53, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 330.

Where a workman employed on a subway almost continually for eight months was told by his foreman, on appearing ready for work on a certain morning, that he need not work that day, the foreman thinking him to be intoxicated and in a condition unfit for work, and where he tripped and fell while leaving the subway, he was a regular employé, in the performance of his duties, and entitled to compensation. Kiernan v. Priestedt Underpinning Co., 171 App. Div. 539, 157 N. Y. Supp. 900.

Physician injured.-Where a physician, under contract to attend the incapacitated employés of a manufacturing concern, is injured while return

conditions being present, an injury is compensable when received by the employé while guarding or protecting the employer's property,25 enforcing his authority as foreman,20 taking care of horses.

ing from a visit to such an employé, the injury is sustained in the course of the employment, although he intended to and did avail himself of the same trip as a convenient occasion to treat a private patient, since the trip derived its character from its main purpose of treating a contract patient. Getzlaff v. Enloe, 3 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 18.

25 Accidents were in the course of the employment: Where a mill superintendent, in pursuance of his general duties of ordering trespassers off the premises and in executing special instructions to the same effect, was shot and killed by a trespasser. In re Reithel, 222 Mass. 163, 109 N. E. 951, L. R. A. 1916A, 304. Where a night watchman was injured during working hours, at a place where he was accustomed to go in performing his duties, from being shot by officers who mistook him for a robber. In re Harbroe, 223 Mass. 139, 111 N. E. 709. Where a night watchman is murdered by burglars whom he has surprised on the premises of his employer. Mason v. Western Metal Supply Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 284. Where a city marshal was murdered by persons whom he is seeking to arrest as suspicious characters.

Colson v. City of Burbank, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 127. Where a bartender is shot dead upon his refusal to throw up his hands at the order of two holdup men attempting to rob a saloon at midnight, and while the bartender was trying to reach the adjoining room to get a revolver. Henning v. Henning, 2 Cal. I. A, C. Dec. 733. Where a night watchman, while in the discharge of his duties, was shot by a burglar and died. In re Margaret Evans, vol. 1, No. 7, Bul. Ohio Indus. Com. p. 55.

26 An injury received by a railroad section foreman in an altercation with one of a gang of men over which he had supervision, which grew out of his justifiable efforts to maintain his authority as foreman and to protect the property of his employer intrusted to his care, is an injury in the course of employment within the meaning of the Boynton Act. Western Indemnity Co. v. Pillsbury, 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 451, 170 Cal. 686, 151 Pac. 398. Where a foreman is threatened with assault by a turbulent and unruly workman, it is not a defense to his application for compensation for injury sustained by such assault that he did not apply to the police power of the state prior to the attack to establish his authority and protect him. The maintenance of discipline by every foreman of a gang is an issue of personality. The foreman who cannot maintain order and discipline among his men and secure obedience to his directions soon ceases to be a foreman. He is therefore not taken out of the course of his employment by standing his ground, instead