For the prosecutor, Edwin Joseph O'Brien.
For the defendant, Hannah F. Sokobin (Harry J. Goas, of counsel).
Before Justices Case, Bodine and Donges.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DONGES, J. A writ of certiorari was allowed to review a judgment of the Essex County Court of Common Pleas which affirmed an award in favor of the defendant herein in the workmen's compensation bureau.
The first point argued is that the bureau was without jurisdiction to make an award because the petition was not filed within one year from the happening of the accident. However, it appears that the reports required to be filed by chapter 187 of the laws of 1924 were not filed by the prosecutor or its insurance carrier, and, therefore, prosecutor is deprived of the defense sought to be asserted.
It is also urged that the petitioner-defendant was not an employe of the prosecutor at the time of the accident within
the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation act. Petitioner, Frank Chapman, was a caddy who carried clubs for players upon the golf course of the prosecutor, Essex County Country Club. The contention of the prosecutor is that a caddy who is authorized by a club to come upon its golf course to attend players, and who is paid by the game by the players, is not an employe of the club.
It appears by the testimony that an agent of the club, the caddy master, exercised the power of selection of the caddies who were permitted to work on the course; that he issued a badge to each caddy, without which none might be upon the property of prosecutor; that the caddies were paid sometimes in cash by the players and sometimes in a pay check form, which was first approved by the caddy master and then cashed at the club house; that Chapman was an authorized caddy on the course of prosecutor, having been given a badge, and had been such, with some interruptions, for a period of thirty-four years.
According to the briefs of counsel, there is but one case in this state dealing with the question here raised. That case came before the workmen's compensation bureau and the Common Pleas Court, in both of which tribunals it was held that a caddy is an employe of the club. The case did not come to this court.
There is a California case squarely in point. This is Clairmont Country Club v. Industrial Commission, 163 Pac. Rep. 209, where the employment was practically the same as in the instant case, and where, in a well reasoned opinion, the employment was held to be established. In discussing the effect of the ...