if the injury occurred while the workman was at his required work, and was of such a character that it might have occurred had he been entirely sober, it diately obey such orders but was last seen about eight of ten minutes after receiv ing the order standing at the head of the ladder by which the bridge was reached, and shortly thereafter a thud was heard and he was found in an unconscious condition at the foot of the ladder, nobody having seen him fall, and it not being proved whether he fell while attempting to obey the orders and descend the ladder. Murphy v. Cooney [1914] 2 I. R. 76, [1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 45, 48 Ir. Law Times, 13, 7 B. W. C. C. 962. The second mate of a vessel who was ordered by the captain to go to his room because of his intoxicated condition and who instead of obeying the captain went aft to speak to the chief engineer and on his way fell down the hatch and was injured, does not suffer injury by accident arising out of his employment. Horsfall v. The Jura [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 183, 6 B. W. C. C. 213. The fact that a sailor has reached the vessel is not sufficient, if he reaches it in such a state of intoxication that he cannot perform his duty, and such intoxication is the cause of his death. Frith v. The Louisianian [1912] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 155, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 701, [1912] W. C. Rep. 285, 5 B. W. C. C. 410, 106 L. T. N. S. 667, [1912] W. N. 98, 28 Times L. R. 331, Buckley, L. J., said: "The whole question here is whether the accident to this man arose out of his employment. I have not the smallest hesitation in answering that in the negative. It arose out of the fact that he was so hopelessly drunk that he could not stand, and I doubt whether he could see. He had gone on shore without leave, which by itself is misconduct, and had got drunk there; he came back so drunk that he was thrown on the deck like a sack of sand; he staggered to his feet after a minute or two and fell over the side of the ship. He was not engaged on his employment; he was not fit for the performance of his employment. If he had been in his employment he would not have been in that part of the ship, but elsewhere. He was within the ambit of the employment in the sense that he was on board the ship; but the accident did not arise out of his employment, but out of the fact that he was so drunk that he could neither stand nor see." In O'Brien v. Star Line (1908) 45 Scot. L. R. 935, 1 B. W. C. C. 177, where a seaman who had returned to his ship late at night the worse for liquor, was found the next morning lying in the bottom of a hole, and there was no evidence as to how he came there and the door through which he fell had been locked and bolted as usual the night before but was found broken open in the morning and there was no evidence as to how or when it was so broken, it was arose out of the employment, although as a matter of fact it was caused by his intoxicated condition, and he was guilty of serious and wilful misconduct.48 held that the applicant had not met the burden resting upon him of proving that the accident arose "out of" as well as in the course of the employment. Lord M'Laren said: "Now, in a certain sense this may be described as an accident arising in the course of the employment, because O'Brien was bound by the terms of his employment to be on board ship at night, and if he had not been in the employment of the Star Line the accident could not have happened. But this consideration does not solve the question, because the employer is only liable to make compensation for an accident arising out of the employment, which I take to mean that there must be some causal relation between the employment and the accident. On the facts stated, the accident is wholly unexplained." Where a sailor returned to a ship in a drunken condition and in going up a gangway from the quay to the ship, he let go his hold of the hand rope and fell on the quay, receiving injuries from which he died, the injury is due entirely to the man's drunkenness and his widow is not entitled to compensation. Nash v. The Rangatira [1914] 3 K. B. (Eng.) 978, 83 L. J. K. B. 1496, [1914] W. N. 291, 111 L. T. N. S. 704, 58 Sol. Jo. 705, 7 B. W. C. C. 590. 48 Where a stableman was required in the furtherance of his duties to go to a loft by ascending a ladder he was within the course of his employment, and if he slipped from the ladder and fell, he suffered injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, notwithstanding the slipping was due to his intoxicated condition, and he was consequently guilty of serious and wilful misconduct. Williams v. Llandudno Coaching & Carriage Co. (1915) 31 Times L. R. (Eng.) 186, 84 L. J. K. B. N. S. 655, [1915] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 91, [1915] W. N. 52, 59 Sol. Jo. 286, 8 B. W. C. C. 143. The master of the rolls laid down the principle that a workman who, while doing an act which it was his duty to do, met with an accident to which he was more exposed than persons who were not so engaged, was, or in case of death, his dependents were, entitled to compensation from the employer, although the act was done negligently or contrary to rules. An engine driver who while driving a traction engine, fell off the foot plate and was fatally injured, suffered an accident arising out of the employment, although he was under the influence of drink and unfit for work at the time. Frazer v. Riddell [1914] S. C. 125, 2 Scot. L. T. 377. 51 Scot L. R. 110, 7 B. W. C. C. 841. The Lord President said: "A man may be engaged in the performance of his work, and an accident may occur incidental to his work, and therefore 'out of' his employment, even although he is in a state of intoxication so great as to be, in the opinion 49 Where an assault is such as is likely to happen because of the nature of the work being performed, it has been held to arise out of the employment. An iron moulder's helper, who, while working in a stooping position in close proximity to boxes of molten metal, was of ordinary people, unfit for the performance of his work. If an accident befalls him under these conditions, it appears to me that, owing to his intoxicated condition, it is rightly called an accident due to serious and wilful misconduct, but it is none the less an accident arising out of his employment because it is incidental to it." 49 An assistant school master in an industrial school, who died from the fracture of the skull and other injuries, the result of an assault committed upon him by several boys of the school in pursuance of a prearranged plan, suffered an injury by ac cident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Trim Joint Dist. School v. Kelly [1914] A. C. (Eng.) 667, 111 L. T. N. S. 306, 30 Times L. R. 452, [1914] W. N. 177, 83 L. J. P. C. N. S. 220, 58 Sol. Jo. 493, 48 Ir. Law Times, 141, [1914] W. C. & Ins., Rep. 359, 7 B. W. C. C. 274. struck by an intoxicated stranger, and fell and was burned by the metal, suffered injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.50 And an engine driver who was struck by a stone wilfully let drop by a boy from an overhead bridge was held to have money was set upon and killed by robbers. Nisbet v. Rayne [1910] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 689, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 84, 103 L. T. N. S. 178, 26 Times L. R. 632, 54 Sol. Jo. 719, 3 B. W. C. C. 507, 3 N. C. C. A. 368. Farwell, L. J., said: "I have come to the conclusion that there is a distinct and well-known risk run by cashiers and the like, who are known to carry considerable sums in cash on regular days by the same route to the same place, of being robbed, and, if they do their duty by defending their charge, murdered, and that such a risk is as incidental to their employment as the risk from missiles from bridges is to the employment of engine drivers, or the risk of injury by poachers to that of gamekeepers." Where the foreman of a company employed in moving furniture had the duty of deciding between applicants for odd jobs, and of letting out vans, and was assaulted by a man who had before been an applicant for odd jobs, but who on this occasion applied for a van, the injury was by accident arising out of the employment, although ordinarily there was no danger of assault from the applicants for vans. Weekes v. Stead [1914] W. N. (Eng.) 263, 30 Times L. R. 586, 58 Sol. Jo. 633, 137 L. T. Jo. 180, [1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 434, 83 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1542, 111 L. T. N. S. 693, 7 B. W. C. C. 398, 6 N. C. C. A. 1010. The fact that the yard in which the assault took place was an exceedingly rough place, and had been the scene of assaults in the past, distinguishes this case from Mitchinson v. Day Bros. (Eng.) note 52 infra. This decision in effect overruled a Scotch case in which it was held that a workman assaulted by strikers was not injured by accident arising out of the employment. Murray v. Denholm, [1911] S. C. 1087, 48 Scot. L. R. 896, 5 B. W. C. C. 496. The lord justice-clerk had said: "It was the act of persons who had given up their situations for reasons of their own, and who, with the intention of doing violence, forced their way into the premises, and, having forcibly overcome the police, proceeded to do violence to persons lawfully there. In these circumstances, how can the injury suffered by the workmen be held to have arisen out of his employment? He was 50 In Shaw v. McFarlane (1914) 52 Scot. lawfully employed, he was within the en- L. R. 236, 8 B. W. C. C. 382, Lord Dundas closed premises of his master, he had the said "In the first place I think it is now protection of the police. It was only by fully settled that a claim for compensation the persistent violence of the strikers that under the act is not excluded merely because he came into any danger. That they de- the accident was caused by the ultroneous sired to drive him out of his employment is or even the felonious act of a third party, certain. They were venting their ill-will provided the workman sustained 't owing to on him because he chose to accept employ- his being specially exposed by the nature of ment, and to work perfectly legally and his employment to the risk of danger which in the due exercise of personal liberty. Is actually befell him. Thus in the it to be held that in every case where present case, if the burns and bruises diviolence or bloodshed are resorted to in dis-rectly resulted from an accident, viz., a fall putes as to wages, such violence and bloodshed are to be held to arise out of the employment of the injured party? Of course, in a sense, it is the fact of his employment that induces the malicious persons to do him injury. But while the injury is done because he has undertaken the employment, it does not arise out of the employment. It arises out of the frame of mind of the attacker, whose act is malicious and criminal." Compensation was allowed where a cashier who was traveling with a large sum of which by the very nature of the respondent's employment was attended with special risk and danger of such consequences, the cases seem to show that the accident arose out of the employment, and that the court need not and ought not to inquire whether the fall itself was caused by something not arising out of, and indeed quite unconnected with, the employment, viz., the unwarrantable blow of an intoxicated !stranger." Lord Dundas also observed: "Considering this question apart from authority, and suffered an injury by accident arising out of his employment; 51 but for the most part assaults are not considered as incident to the ordinary work performed by a workman.52 No compensation is recoverable where one workman is injured by a stone thrown in anger by another workman.53 There is an apparent inconsistency in these decisions, and this is emphasized by the fact that three judges dissented in the House of Lords decision which is first cited. An injury received by a workman while he himself was deliberately assaulting a fellow workman was not caused by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment.54 And an injury caused by an intentionally felonious assault by an employer upon the workman does not arise out of the employment.55 simply upon the facts proved, and the words of the statute in their natural and ordinary meaning, I should agree with the sheriff-substitute in holding that the accident arose out of the employment. One of the risks obviously incidental to the employment of this ironmoulder's helper was that of working in the immediate vicinity of the molten metal and heavy weights, and on the occasion in question he was working under these conditions, in a dangerous place and in a stooping position. The accident which befell him was, I take it, a fall, with the immediate result, naturally arising from his position and its attendant risks, of burns and bruises. I should have thought it idle to contend that because the accident, i. e., the fall, was caused by a blow struck by an outsider, we are to disregard the causa proxima of the injuries, viz., the fall in contact with hot metal and crushing weights, and ascribe the injuries to a more remote cause, viz., the blow, which clearly did not arise out of the employ ment." 51 Challis v. London & S. W. R. Co. [1905] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 154, 74 L. J. K. B. N. S. 569, 53 Week. Rep. 613, 93 L. T. N. S. 330, 21 Times L. R. 486. Collins, M. R., said: "I do not think that there was anything in the fact that the stone was wilfully dropped, to prevent what happened from being an accident from the standpoint of the person who suffered through it. The question remains whether it was an accident which arose out and in the course of the deceased's employment. In deciding that question we should [not] be justified in leaving out of sight what is matter of common knowledge and experience in relation to the subject with which we are dealing; and therefore we must, I think, approach the question whether what occurred was a risk incidental to the employment of an engine driver from the standpoint that a train in motion has great attractions for mischievous boys as an object at which to discharge missiles." It Whether or not a sailor, who is injured while on shore, before he returns to his vessel, is injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, is a question which has caused considerable conflict of opinion. would seem clear that if he goes ashore on some duty directly connected with the vessel, he is clearly "in the course of" his employment, and the right to compensation depends solely upon the circumstances of the injury. But where he goes to shore for his own purposes, a far more difficult situation arises. It has been said that "an accident befalls a man in the course of' his employment if it occurs while he is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do, within a time during which he is employed and at a place where he may reasonably be during that time." 56 So it has been held that a salior who goes 52 No compensation was allowed where the applicant was employed as a cook in a hotel wherein the kitchen and the bar were on the same level, and a drunken customer came out of the bar into the kitchen, where he had no business to be, and made a rush at the cook, who, in trying to avoid him, put her arm through a glass door. Murphy v. Berwick (1909) 43 Ir. Law Times, 126. Walker, L. C., said that the employer is not liable for the tortious act of a third party, where such act is not a risk reasonably to be contemplated by the employee in taking the employment. Nor where a foreman of sewage works was stabbed by a drunken man during a fight on the street where the pipes were being laid. Collins v. Collins [1907] 2 I. R. (Ir.) 104. The risk of being assaulted by a drunken man is not in any way especially connected with or incident to employment as a carter. Mitchinson v. Day Bros. [1913] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 603, 82 L. J. K. B. N. S. 421, 108 L. T. N. S. 193, 29 Times L. R. 267, 57 Sol. Jo. 300, [1913] W. N. 36 [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 324, 6 B. W. C. C. 190. 53 Armitage v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co. [1902] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 178, 71 L. J. K. B. N. S. 778, 66 J. P. 613, 86 L. T. N. S. 883, 18 Times L. R. 648. An injury to a boy engaged in picking stone and "bats" out of coal running past in a belt and who was hit in the eyes by a stone maliciously thrown by a boy who was likewise engaged, did not arise out of the employment. Clayton V. Hardwick Colliery Co. (1914) 7 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 643. 54 Shaw v. Wigan Coal & I. Co. (1909) 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 81. 55 Blake v. Head [1912] W. C. Rep. (Eng.) 198, 106 L. T. N. S. 822, 28 Times L. R. 321, 5 B. W. C. C. 303. It was pointed out that the workman's remedy was by an action for assault. 56 Lord Loreburn in Moore v. Manchester Liners [1910] A. C. (Eng.) 498. He fur on shore with leave is still in the course ing from shore, where he has been on of his employment, although he has gone his own business, he does not suffer inthere for purposes of his own.57 In jury by accident arising "out of" his several cases in which this principle has employment, where the injury occurs bebeen applied, the sailor took an unusual fore he has reached the gangway or or dangerous method to reach the vessel other approach to the vessel, although from the quay, but this fact was consid- he is on the dock, making his way to the ered insufficient to prevent recovery.58 vessel. Risks of such injuries are not incident to the employment.59 The same But although a sailor may be "in the course of" his employment while return-rule would, of course, apply in the case ther said: "It may seem at first sight that this is a formidable interpretation. It is not so in reality, because in every case the accident, to be a ground for compensation, must also be one arising out of the employment [and it is not often that such risks are run, except at the place where the man's work is to be done]. A seaman, for example, who is ashore on leave, and is knocked down by a wagon, is not injured by an accident arising out of his employment. But if he is sent ashore on ship's business, he is doing that errand in the same position as a messenger, and is protected against the same risks." 57 "The return of the man (a sailor) to his ship was in the course of his employment." Lord Loreburn, L. C., in Kitchenham v. The Johannesburg [1911] A. C. (Eng.) 417, [1911] W. N. 142, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1102, 105 L. T. N. S. 118, 27 Times L. R. 504, 55 Sol. Jo. 599, 4 B. W. C. C. 311. 58 In Robertson v. Allan Bros. (1908) 77 L. J. K. B. N. S. (Eng.) 1072, 98 L. T. N. S. 821, 1 B. W. C. C. 172, compensation was allowed where a ship steward on returning from shore, where he had gone for his own purposes during a time when he had a right to be on shore, attempted to board the vessel by means of the cargo skid, as the sailors were in the custom of doing, and fell, receiving injuries from which he died. Where a fireman on a ship fell from a ladder which was the only means of access to the ship as he was returning from shore, whence he had gone to make certain purchases for himself the injury arises in the course of the employment. Moore v. Manchester Liners [1910] A. C. (Eng.) 498, 79 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1175, 103 L. T. N. S. 226, 26 Times L. R. 618, 54 Sol. Jo. 703, 3 B. W. C. C. 527, reversing [1909] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 417, 100 L. T. N. S. 164, 78 L. J. K. B. N. S. 463, 25 Times L. R. 202. See also Kearon v. Kearon (1911) 45 Ir. Law Times, 96, 4 B. W. C. C. 435, cited in note 61 infra. 59 Recovery was refused where there is no proof that a sailor who had been on shore on leave, and was drowned while returning to the vessel, had reached the gangway when he fell. Kitchenham v. The Johannesburg [1911] A. C. (Eng.) 417, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1102, 105 L. T. N. S. 118, 27 Times L. R. 504, 55 Sol. Jo. 599, 4 B. W. C. C. 311, affirming the Court of Appeal in [1911] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 523, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 313, 103 L. T. N. S. 778, 27 Times L. R. 124, 55 Sol. Jo. 124, 4 B. W. C. C. 91 (accident arose in the course of his employment, but not out of it). And where a sailor returning to his ship from a week-end at his son's house slipped on some public steps leading to the river. Kelly v. The Foam Queen (1910) 3 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 113. And where the master of a vessel, who goes ashore for his own purposes, as he has a right to, falls off the pier as he is waiting for a boat from his vessel. Fletcher v. The Duchess [1911] A. C. (Eng.) 671, 81 L. J. K. B. N. S. 33, 55 Sol Jo. 598, 4 B. W. C. C. 317, 105 L. T. N. S. 121. And where a seaman who had gone on shore with leave, for his own purposes, and found upon his return that the ship had moved to another part of the dock, made his way along the dockside where there were many railway lines, and was struck by a train and injured. Biggart v. The Minnesota (1911) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 68. The risk of falling off the edge of a quay into the water is common to everyone, and such an accident, happening to a sailor who had been on land and was returning to his vessel, did not arise out of the employment, where he had not reached the gangway. Craig v. The Calabria [1914] S. C. 762, 2 Scot. L. T. 30, 51 Scot. L. R. 657, 7 B. W. C. C. 932. Lord Dundas said: "I think the case would have been materially different if, at the time of the accident, the man had reached the gangway, and fallen off it into the water, and the risk was one due to the means of access to the ship." The death of a ship's engineer did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, where in attempting to reach his ship, about 100 yards from the shore, where he had been on a legitimate purpose, he entered a life boat usually manned by six men, and tried alone to reach the ship by paddling with the rudder, but was carried out to sea and was drowned. Halvorsen v. Salvesen (1911) 49 Scot. L. R. 27. The finding by the county court judge that a fireman on a vessel was not in the ambit of his employment will be sustained where the evidence showed that he had gone on shore, and at the time of the accident was walking along a jetty so as to get near to his vessel to hail it for a boat, and there was no evidence as to when he went ashore, or whether he was on the ship's business, or whether he had leave or not. Dixon v. The Ambient [1912] W. C. Rep. (Eng.) 224, 5 B. W. C. C. 428. A fireman who goes ashore with leave to buy provisions, and is drowned on his return of a sailor leaving the vessel.60 But if the sailor has reached the gangway upon his return to the vessel, the accident may be found to arise out of the employment.61 In the cases cited below it was held that a sailor who, upon returning from shore, was injured while using a ladder or gangway or other means of access to the vessel, suffered injury by accident arising out of the employment, although the special point decided was that the to the vessel by falling off the pier, is not | within the scope of the act, although the provision in the contract of service, that the master was to supply the sailors with provision was stricken out, and across it was written, "Crew to provide their own provision." Parker V. The Black Rock [1914] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 39, 83 L. J. K. B. N. S. 421, 110 L. T. N. S. 520, 30 Times L. R. 271, 58 Sol. Jo. 285, [1914] W. N. 43, [1914] W. C. & Ins. Rep. 117, 7 B. W. C. C. 152. The position taken by the court was that, notwithstanding he was to provide for himself, this did not constitute a contractual obligation, and consequently it must be held that he went ashore upon his own business. This decision was sustained by the House of Lords, [1915] A. C. (Eng.) 725, 31 Times L. R. 432, [1915] W. N. 204. 60 Where a sailor upon the completion of the voyage had been discharged and had left the ship, but was on a floating stage to which the ship was moored, and was making his way to the shore, and fell between it and the quay and was drowned, the accident did not arise in the course of his employment. Cook v. The Montreal [1913] W. C. & Ins. Rep. (Eng.) 206, 108 L. T. N. S. 164, 29 Times L. R. 233, 57 Sol. Jo. 282, 6 B. W. C. C. 220. 61 Recovery is allowable where a sailor who had been on shore on leave, and was drowned while returning to the vessel, fell after he had reached the gangway and was crossing it. Leach v. Oakley [1911] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 523, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 313, 103 L. T. N. S. 778, 27 Times L. R. 124, 55 Sol. Jo. 124, 4 B. W. C. C. 91. A sailor returning to his vessel from the shore where he had been on leave, on business of his own, is entitled to compensation for injuries received in jumping from the pier to the vessel, there being no other means of getting on board. Kearon v. Kearon (1911) 45 Ir. Law Times, 96, 4 B. W. C. C. 435. A sailor who upon returning from shore had passed over the gangway, and had one foot upon the rail and one upon the deck, when he overbalanced and fell into the water and drowned, suffered death from accident arising "out of and in the course of his employment." Canavan v. The Universal (1910) 3 B. W. C. U. (Eng.) 355. 62 Robertson v. Allan Bros. (1908) 77 L. J. K. B. N. S. (Eng.) 1072, 98 L. T. N. S. 821, 1 B. W. C. C. 172, Kearon v. Kearon (1911) 45 Ir. Law Times, 96, 4 B. W. C. C. injury occurred in the course of the employment.62 The Irish court of appeal has apparently taken the position that the sailor must be back upon the vessel itself before he can be held to have returned to his employment.6 63 The burden of proving that an accident arose out of and in the course of the workman's employment lies on the plaintiff.64 It is not sufficient to prove 435, and Moore v. Manchester Liners ]1910] A. C. (Eng.) 498, 79 L. J. K. B. N. S. 1175, 103 L. T. N. S. 226, 26 Times L. R. 618, 54 Sol. Jo. 703, 3 B. W. C. C. 527, reversing the court of appeal [1909] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 417, 100 L. T. N. S. 164, 78 L. J. K. B. N. S. 463, 25 Times L. R. 202. These cases are cited in note 58 supra. 63 The injury to a sailor who fell from the gangway into the water while returning to his ship from a trip on shore, which was not connected with his employment, does not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Hyndman v. Craig (1911) 45 Ir. Law Times, 11, 4 B. W. C. C. 438. Sir Samuel Walker, L. C., in a very brief paragraph upholding the decision of the recorder denying recovery, said: "Was the deceased in his ship when he met with the accident? He was still using the means of getting there." 64 McNicholas v. Dawson (1899) 68 L. J. Q. B. N. S. (Eng.) 470 [1899] 1 Q. B. 773, 80 L. T. N. S. 317, 47 Week. Rep. 500, 15. Times L. R. 242; Pomfret v. Lancashire & Y. R. Co. [1903] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 718, 72 L.. J. K. B. N. S. 729, 52 Week. Rep. 66, 89 L. T. N. S. 176, 19 Times L. R. 649; McDonald v. The Banana [1908] 2 K. B. (Eng.) 926, 78 L. J. K. B. N. S. 26, 99 L. T. N. S. 671, 24 Times L. R. 887, 52 Sol. Jo. 741; Charles v. Walker (1909) 25 Times L. R. (Eng.) 609; Hewitt v. The Duchess [1910] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 772, 79 L. J. K. B. N. S. 867, 102 L. T. N. S. 204, 26 Times L. R. 300, 54 Sol. Jo. 325, 3 B. W. C. C. 239; Jenkins v. Standard Colliery Co. (1911) 28 Times L. R. (Eng.) 7 (death caused by blood! poisoning following an abrasion of the skin;: nothing to show that the abrasion was received in the employment); Karemaker v.. The Corsican (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 295 (sailor suffering from frost-bite did not prove that it was due to any particular circumstance of the employment); O'Brien v. Star Line [1908] S. Č. (Scot.) 1258; Carrick v. North British Locomotive Co. [1909] S. C. (Scot.) 698; M'Adam v. Harvey [1903] 2 I. R. (Ir.) 511; Gatton v. Limerick S. S. Co. (1910) 44 Ir. Law Times 141 [1910] 2 I. R. 561; Rayman v. Fields (1910) 102 L. T. N. S. (Eng.) 154, 26 Times L. R. 274, 3 B. W. C. C. 123; Astley v. Evans. [1911] 1 K. B. (Eng.) 1036, 80 L. J. K. B. N. S. 731, 104 L. T. N. S. 373, 4 B. W. C.. C. 209, 3 N. C. C. A. 239; Farmer v. Stafford' (1911) 4 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 223; Furnivall v. Johnson's Iron & Steel Co. (1911) 5 B. W. C. C. (Eng.) 43; Charvill v.. Manser |