that the date of this agreement is, May 31st, 1916, as here and before stated, and was executed after the defendant had full knowledge of the nature of the injury, the manner in which it was suffered and had full opportunity to consult with and receive the reports of both its own first aid physician and Dr. Sweet the expert. It now seeks to set aside the agreement, which was not hastily entered into, but which was consummated fully six weeks after the accident, during which time there had been plenty of opportunity for investigation and determination. of the merits of the claimant's right to compensation.

To support the petition it offered the testimony of Dr. Sweet, who now states that he examined the claimant's eye on April 17, 1916, and again on May 2nd. His examination showed a retinal detachment in the right eye. On the following day the witness received from the claimant a history of a large quarter inch piece of steel entering the globe of his eye. At that time the witness stated that a scar was noticeable in the globe in the upper portion of the eye. On May 4th he placed the claimant in the Jefferson Hospital and treated him for detached retina.

This witness further suggests that had as large a piece of steel entered the eye as described by the claimant that there would have necessarily been a scar commensurate in size with the wound that would have been thus produced. He, however, admitted that he had not looked directly under the eye lid, and that there might have been a scar there at the time of his examination that he had not noticed.

The good faith of the claimant is further attacked by a brother-in-law with a very apparent enmity toward the claimant. He stated that the claimant had boasted to him that he had deceived the defendant's representative when his eyes were examined. This witness attempted to account for the fact that the claimant was able to distingunsh the letters on the cards in the eye test with each of his eyes in turn closed by committing these letters to memory when he first saw them with his good eye, and then repeating them when the examiner covered his good eye and thus created the impression that he was seeing with. his blind eye.

The witness further stated that the loss of the

vision in the eye under discussion was suffered by the claimant through an injury sustained during the month of August, 1915, while the claimant was employed by another while loading refuse on a wagon by being struck in the eye with flying glass.

We attach very little importance to this witness, first, because of his evident hostility to the claimant, and, second, the improbability of his story. It became necessary for him to make his testimony at all plausible to explain how the claimant was able to pass the eye test at the defendant's establishment, and in order to do this it seems to us that he sought to explain it by saying his brother-in-law had committed the letters to memory. This seems to us to be absolutely impossible, besides we cannot credit the statement that the defendant employs experts to examine the eyes of its employes who could be so easily deceived.

The testimony of the claimant seems to us to be clear, straight-forward and convincing. He described the previous accident very frankly, and stated that while loading ashes he was struck in the eye by a piece of a broken bottle. The injury was simply a laceration or cut of the eye lid. He was taken to the Pennsylvania Hospital where two stitches were placed in the wound. In this statement he was completely corroborated by the hospital record which was introduced by the defendant and received by agreement of counsel.

This reads:

"This is to certify that Earl Adams, age 25 years, of 1109 Vine Street, was brought to the Pennsylvania Hospital August 16, 1915, at 2.55 P. M., by Patrol No. 2, suffering with a lacerated eyelid.

Treatment: Sutured-Wet Boric dressing. Treated by Dr. Nolen."

There is no indication in this record that there was any injury to the eye. There is no evidence in the whole case that any serious consequences followed this rather insignificant incident.

We, therefore, find that the allegations of the petition have not been proved, and therefore the petition is dismissed.

HEARINGS DE NOVO.

SELMA SWANSON vs. JOHN C. SHARKEY.

Cause of death-Heart disease-Evidence-Burden of proof.

Hearing de novo before the Board at Johnstown, Pa., Feb. 8, 1917. For Report of original Award, see 2 Dep. Rep. 952. For Opinion of the Board on Appeal, see 2 Dep. Rep. 1382.

BY THE BOARD, March 21, 1917:

This case first came before the Board on appeal from the decision of Referee Snyder of the Sixth Compensation District. See 2 Dep. Rep. 1382. The claimant filed a petition with the Board alleging inaccuracies and omissions in the stenographer's notes of the testimony which came before the Board as part of the record in the case. In consequence of this suggestion of diminution of record the Insurance Carrier agreed that a hearing de novo should be granted in order that the claimant might have another opportunity to produce her evidence in full as to the cause of her husband's death. She was thus able to prepare herself for the hearing de novo in accordance with the suggestions of the opinion referred to, in which the Board discussed a claimant's duty to meet the burden of proof which the law of evidence places upon him who seeks to prove a fact. The Board accorded the claimant a long and patient hearing, and we are constrained to the conclusion that our original opinion in Swanson vs. Sharkey, 2 Dep. Rep. 1382, must still prevail, and that there is no such persuasive evidence that the deceased's death was due to the accident so that we would be justified in law or good conscience in making an award in favor of the claimant.

Compensation is accordingly disallowed.

CASES NOT ELSEWHERE REPORTED.

First District-George C. Klauder, Referee.

Claim Petition No. 1455. Louis Blanch vs. E. F. Houghton & Co. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 1701.

Berardino Di Stefano vs. B. F. Nightlinger.

Compensation awarded.

C. P. No. 2160. Daisy Rambo vs. John Keever. Compensation awarded.

C. P. No. 2212. Ossie Jenkins vs. Dunleavy Bros. Adjusted by agreement.

C. P. No. 2220. Konstanky Grabosky vs. C. Bockius Co. Adjusted by agreement.

C. P. No. 2259. Geo. N. Elliott vs. Phila. & Reading Ry Co. Petition withdrawn.

C. P. No. 2282. Philip Haus vs. Phila. Screen Co. Adjusted by agreement.

C. P. No. 2314. Harry Rubinstein vs. Schwartz Wheel Co. Adjusted by agreement.

C. P. No. 2322. Andrew Cotton vs. Joseph Morne Co. Adjusted by agreement.

Compensation agreement No. 5091. John E. Smith vs. Wm. McAllister & Co. Supplemental agreement made.

Compensation Agreement No. 46655. Samuel Bryant vs. Turner Concrete Steel Co. Agreement terminated.

Compensation Agreement No. 53347. Frederick Geider vs. Hafleigh & Co. Compensation continued.

First District-Wm. B. Scott, Referee.

C. P. No. 1912. Sarah E. Riffle vs. McClintic Marshall Const. Co. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 1991. Joseph J. Darey vs. Baldwin Locomotive Works. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 2154. Max Gladstine vs. Electric Storage Battery Co. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 2321. Liugi D'Antonio vs. Baldwin Locomotive Works. Adjusted by agreement.

Compensation Agreement No. 58256. Annie Bergman vs Rebe-Ralston Morrison. Agreement terminated.

Third District-Geo. W. Beemer, Referee.

C. P. No. 1418. Mary Elizabeth Jones vs. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. Compensation awarded.

C. P. No. 1584 (Same as 1262). Elizabeth Wanoski, widow, and Deela and Anthony Wanoski, minor children vs. Delaware. Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., or D. L. & W. Coal Co. Compensation awarded.

C. P. No. 1609. Mrs. Josephine Tuch vs. Delaware & Hudson Co. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 1808. Mrs. Dominick Donolavage vs. Lehigh Valley Coal Co. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 1814. Mrs. Mary A. McCurrin vs. Delaware & Hudson Co. Compensation awarded.

C. P. No. 1961. Mrs. Margaret Nowak vs. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. Petition withdrawn.

C. P. No. 2025. Valentino Checconi vs. Temple Coal Co. Compensation disallowed.

C. P. No. 2063. Mrs. Elizabeth Eydler vs. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. Compensation awarded.

C. P. No. 2066. Joseph McCarthy vs. MacDonald Engin-eering & Construction Co. Adjusted by agreement.

C. P. No. 2214. of New Milford, Pa. C. P. No. 2384.

by agreement.

T. G. Shay vs. St. John's Catholic Society
Adjusted by agreement.

John M. Lunny vs. Theo. Kime. Adjusted

C. P. No. 2395. John Haggerty vs. Spencer Coal Co. Adjusted by agreement.

Petition for Modification of Compensation Agreement No. 24903. Mike Meshonis vs. East Boston Coal Co. Agreement terminated.