On certiorari. Respondent's appeal from judgment of the Supreme Court (12 N.J. Mis. R. 301), which dismissed the writ and affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Passaic county, which, in turn affirmed the findings of the workmen's compensation bureau in favor of petitioner. Affirmed.
For the respondent, Nathan Rabinowitz, Marcus & Levy (Isadore Rabinowitz, of counsel).
For the appellant, Joseph C. Paul.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PERSKIE, J. This is a workmen's compensation case. The deputy compensation commissioner, John J. Stahl, found among other things that on October 20th, 1931, respondent was employed by appellant as a weaver, and had been so employed for a period of seven years prior thereto. That on the last mentioned date she suffered personal injuries as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of her employment; and made an award in her favor, &c. Respondent has since died. An appeal was taken from the award of the compensation bureau to the Common Pleas Court of Passaic county, and was there sustained. The judgment of the last mentioned court was, on certiorari, removed to the Supreme Court.
Our reports are replete with decisions which clearly state and restate the law applicable in such cases. The following are a few of the many typical cases:
In Pearson v. Armstrong Cork Co., 6 N.J. Mis. R. 976, the Supreme Court held (at p. 978):
"Where two independent and distinct tribunals such as these have examined the facts and heard the testimony we do not think that a conclusion so reached should be lightly disturbed by this court upon a mere inspection of the written word, where there is ample support in the testimony for the conclusion so reached, and we therefore are of the opinion that such conclusion should stand undisturbed."
In Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 6 N.J. Mis. R. 1111; affirmed, 105 N.J.L. 636, the Supreme Court held (at p. 1113):
"What was said by this court in a recent case (not yet reported, Pearson v. Armstrong Cork Co., No. 207, October term, 1928) is pertinent; when two independent and distinct tribunals, such as these, have examined the facts and heard the testimony, we do not think that a conclusion so reached should be lightly disturbed by this court."
See, also, Berman v. Levenstein, 9 N.J. Mis. R. 378, 380; Phillips v. Federated Metals Corp., 12 Id. 160.
The following points were argued before the ...