servants to do repairs to the roofs of their houses; they employ a builder whose particular business it is to do it. Hence, there was nothing to connect the accident with the defendants. 1880, Manzoni v. Douglas, 6 Q. B. D. 145; 50 L. J., Q. B. 289. A horse drawing a brougham suddenly and without any explainable cause bolted, and, notwithstanding_the utmost efforts of the driver to control him, swerved on to the footway and injured the plaintiff. Held, no evidence of negligence to go to the jury. 1884, Macfarlane v. Thompson, 12 Sc. Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 232. Where the cause of the accident is not ascertained, the fact that it has taken place will not raise a presumption that it was caused by a defect in the machinery or plant for which the master was responsible. EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE. 1850, Skinner v. L. B. & S. C. R. Co., 5 Ex. 787. A train ran against another train standing in a station. Held, that the mere fact of the accident having occurred was prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the defendants. See also Carpue v. L. & B. R. Co., 5 Q. B. 751. 1863, G. W. R. v. Braid, 1 Moo. P. C., N. S. 101. When an injury is alleged to have arisen from the improper construction or maintenance of a railway, the fact of one of its embankments giving way will amount to prima facie evidence of such insufficiency; and this evidence may become conclusive, in the absence of any proof on the part of the company to rebut it. 1863, Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722; 33 L. J., Ex. 13, The plaintiff was walking in a public street, past the defendant's shop, when a barrel of flour fell upon him from a window above the shop, and seriously injured him. Held, sufficient prima facie evidence of negligence for the jury to cast on the defendant the onus of proving that the accident was not caused by his negligence. 1865, Scott v. London Dock Co., 3 H. & C. 596; Where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not happen if those who have the management use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendants, that the accident arose from want of care. 1871, Kearney v. L. B. & S. C. R. Co., L. R., 6 Q. B. 759; 40 L. J., Q. B. 285. A brick fell from a bridge and injured the plaintiff, a train having passed just previously. On examination, other bricks were found to have fallen out. Held, sufficient evidence of negligence to go to the jury. 1882, Walker v. Olsen, 9 Sc. Sess. Cas. 4th Ser. 946. A stevedore, while engaged in unloading a vessel, was injured by the tackling, with which the cargo was being raised, falling upon him. The tackling was supplied by the owner of the vessel: It was impossible to say exactly to what cause the falling of the tackling was attributable. Held, that the accident, along with the fact that there was no satisfactory explanation, was evidence that the tackling was defective, and the owner was liable. Of the above, Welfare v. L. & B. R. Co. has always been considered an extreme case, but it can be defended on the ground mentioned by Cockburn, C.J. Although, as we have seen, the happening of an accident may, in some cases, be prima facie evidence of negligence, it is not conclusive evidence thereof, and, notwithstanding such prima facie evidence, it is open to a jury to find a verdict for the defendants (d). (d) 1858, Bird v. G. N. R. Co., 28 L. J., Ex. 3. APPENDIX D. THE following Letter and Form appeared in The Times of November 29, 1897 : TO THE EDITOR OF "THE TIMES." SIR,- So many inquiries have been made to this office as to the procedure under the contracting-out section of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, that I am induced to ask you to allow me to publish a brief statement on the matter in your columns. Although the Act does not come into operation until July 1, 1898, we shall be prepared to receive applications for certificate on and after January 1 next, in order that the necessary preliminaries may be gone through in time to issue the certificates on or before July 1. The Act requires as a condition precedent to the granting of a certificate by the Registrar that he should "take steps to ascertain the views of the employer and workmen." The first step appears to us to be that the employer and such of the workmen as join in the application should be asked to state their views in writing in a document accompanying the scheme. We have drawn up a form for this purpose, which I subjoin. The second step, that of ascertaining the views of the workmen who do not join in the application, will be taken afterwards. The investigation that is to follow these preliminary steps will have, as it appears to us, to be directed to two points : 1. Will the employer pay as much under the scheme as he would have to pay under the Act? 2. Will the workman derive as much benefit under the scheme as he would derive under the Act? These questions depend to a large extent upon actuarial considerations; and we therefore suggest to the applicants for certificate to a scheme that they should have recourse to the advice of a competent actuary in framing its details. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, E. W. BRABROOK. Registry of Friendly Societies, Central Office, [Form of Application, &c.-See over. 113 WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1897. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE TO SCHEME. Title of Scheme Nature of Employment This application is made by the undersigned employer and workmen. The undersigned workmen have been authorized to join in it by out of the total number of workmen in the employment. [State how authority was given. The statement should be authenticated.] The following is a comparison of the provisions of the scheme with those of the Act: On death of a workman leaving dependants On death of a workman leaving no dependants.) During incapacity for work after second week Scale of Compensation. By Act. £150 to £300, subject Not exceeding £10. Not exceeding 50 per By Scheme. The following are the benefits provided by the scheme other than those of the Act:- The contribution of the employer to the scheme is to be The contribution of the workmen to the scheme is to be The scheme contains no obligation upon the workmen to join the scheme as a condition of their hiring. The scheme has been actuarially [valued and] reported upon by Mr. and a copy of his report is lodged herewith. The views of the employer are as follow:: (Signature) -, Employer. [Where more than one employer joins in the scheme, the form should be modified accordingly, and all should sign it.] The views of the undersigned workmen are as follow: (Signatures) Workmen. INDEX. ACCIDENT, arising out of and in the course of the employment under attributable to serious and wilful misconduct of workmen how far evidence of negligence under Employers' Liability notice of, under Workmen's Compensation Act, 4, 18. Employers' Liability Act, 61, 64. inevitable, defence of, under Employers' Liability Act, 83. ACTION under Employers' Liability Act, must be brought in the county court, 62. ALTERATION IN LAW, under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1 et seq. ANNUITY, investment of compensation in, under Workmen's APPEAL, under Workmen's Compensation Act, 42. ARBITRATIONS, under Workmen's Compensation Act, 4, 17, 41 et seq. ARBITRATOR, death of, 42. decision on question of law, when final, 42. may submit question of law for decision of county court refusal or inability to act, 42. under Workmen's Compensation Act, 41 et seq. ASSESSORS, appointment of, under Employers' Liability Act, 63, 72. AWARD under Workmen's Compensation Act, how enforced, |