he had been engaged in cleaning the gun, though there was no positive evidence as to this. It was a case in which the board was obliged either to infer suicide or accidental discharge of the gun while cleaning it, and the latter inference seemed the proper

one.

It is equally well settled, I think, that where the assault which results in the injury arises out of a dispute or quarrel purely personal to the workman and not associated with his employment, compensation should not be allowed.

The distinction may be thus illustrated: Where a foreman is assaulted and injured while trying to compel a discharged workman to leave the place of his former employment, I think that the claim should be allowed. This was an actual case in California. On the other hand, and this is a case from our own province, a street car conductor in resenting what he considered a personal insult directed at him by a soldier passenger abused the soldier rather badly. The latter, upon going to his camp nearby, reported the affair to his soldier companions, whereupon a number of them returned, boarded this conductor's car as it was returning and beat him up, causing severe personal injury. We held that this was a purely personal quarrel and that the injury thus sustained did not arise out of the employment.

In another case which came before us, two workmen got into a dispute over some material or tools required in connection with their work and, words finally leading to blows, one of them was quite seriously injured. This one appeared to be the least to blame of the two, yet he did actively participate in the scrap. We held that the dispute was a purely personal one between these two men, and as the interests of the employer were in no way involved or concerned the injuries could not be said to have arisen out of the employment.

We also rejected a claim in a case where a boy was found dead at his place of work with a loop of rope

around his neck, as the circumstances pointed to suicide rather than accident.

Injuries Due to Frostbite or Heat Stroke.—The cases coming under this heading turn upon the same consideration as the lightning and bombardment cases above noted, viz., the question of special exposure.

In the Warner v. Couchman case, decided by the House of Lords in England in 1911, a baker whose duty was to drive a bread delivery cart was frostbitten in the hand. The County Court Judge held that there was nothing in the employment which exposed him to more than the ordinary risk of cold to which every person working in the open air was exposed on that day, and consequently the injury did not arise out of the employment. The House of Lords held that the decision of the County Court Judge on this question of fact was final.

Important dicta by one of the Appeal Court judges, however, are quoted in the House of Lords with favour as expressing the point of view with which he says judges should approach cases of this kind:

"Where we deal with natural causes affecting a considerable area, such as severe weather, we are bound to consider whether the accident arose out of the employment or was merely a consequence of the severity of the weather to which persons in the locality, whether so employed or not, were equally exposed. If it is the latter, it does not arise out of the employment because the man is not specially affected by the severity of the weather by reason of his employment."

In the case of Dennis v. White, above referred to, which reversed the old line of decisions in regard to street accidents, Lord Chancellor Finlay, in referring to frostbite and sunstroke cases as distinguished from ordinary street accidents, says:

"In such cases it is material to show that the work involves special exposure to the heat or cold. Where

the risk is one shared by all men, whether in or out of the employment, in order to show that the accident arose out of the employment, it must be established that special exposure to it is involved."

In regard to heat stroke, there are two English authorities in which the principles governing these cases were fully considered one in the House of Lords in 1908 (the Ismay v. Williamson case) and the other in the Court of Appeal in 1914 (Maskery v. Lancashire). These were both shipping cases. In the one a stoker was overcome with heat while trimming the fires and in the other a young man not in the best of health who had shipped as an engineer on a vessel bound for Singapore, while sailing in the southern port of the Red Sea, was overcome by heat and died.

In both cases the Court held that death was due to accident arising out of the employment, and it did not affect the situation to say that the man was not robust enough to stand the tropical heat. It was sufficient to find that the work in the engine room or boiler room exposed the workman to excessive heat, which was far greater than that to which ordinary sailors whose duty does not take them into the engine room were subjected.

We had a case of frostbite in Ontario last winter which the board allowed. A railway workman was sent out with an auxiliary crew to clear a wreckweather thirty degrees below zero. He was put at the job of flagging and was so engaged three or four hours, with the result that his legs and feet were very badly frozen. Under these circumstances it was considered accidental injury arising out of the employment.

Accidents Occurring During Moments of Leisure or While Doing Something of a Personal Nature.Cases coming under this heading are very numerous and their decision must necessarily turn on the particular circumstances in each case. In England, as

well as in all the jurisdictions on this side whose reports I have had the opportunity of reading, there is quite a latitude allowed workmen in respect to moments of leisure during the course of employment. The crew of a train, for example, waiting at a switch. to make a crossing; a sailor in a river boat waiting for the tide; a machine operator waiting for material which he is dependent on another workman to bring to him; a trainman having a few hours between arrival at terminal and departure on return journey-one can easily imagine a variety of cases of this type, where the workman is clearly in the course of his employment but for the time being has no duties to perform for the employer.

To quote Milton: "They also serve who only stand and wait."

The question to be asked in every such case is, Did the workman occupy those moments of leisure reasonably, having regard to all the circumstances?

If during such an interval of waiting he meets with an accident while engaged in some occupation or amusement which is unconnected with his employment, or which adds to the risk to which he would otherwise be subject, judges in the main agree that compensation should not be allowed, but what one may reasonably do, of a personal nature and which is not in conflict with specific instructions, should not be held as taking a man outside the scope.of his employment for purposes of compensation in the event of accident. while so occupied.

The following decisions are noted in this connection: The New Jersey Supreme Court allowed a claim where a workman was killed while crossing railway tracks near the place of his employment to the toilét in common use by workmen in the employer's service. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts held that a compositor who went out on the roof on a hot night for fresh air and was injured by making a misstep was entitled to compensation. The California

commission went so far as to hold that a cook was entitled to compensation, where he left the kitchen to smoke for a time on the adjoining porch, and on attempting to return opened the wrong door and fell downstairs.

There is one decision, however, reported from Iowa, which I think is carrying the idea of personal liberty at the expense of the employer too far. In that case a workman was allowed compensation who undertook to light his pipe while his hands were moist with gasoline, with which he had been cleaning clothing.

We have had a variety of these personal and leisure-moment cases before our board, quite a number of them arising out of accidents occurring to workmen while remaining on the employer's premises during the luncheon hour.

I note among them the following:

Allowed

Where a woman worker boiled water for tea on a gas jet near her work and it boiled over or was knocked over causing injury.

Where a boy, 14, working in a planing mill, being desirous of fixing up a small block of wood for his own use, took it to a saw to cut it to the desired shape and got his thumb cut off.

Where a scavenger, working for city, found two electric bulbs in garbage and out of curiosity cracked them together and lost an eye.

Where a section man, who had gone into city on his speeder to get his pay check, was found dead on the track, evidently run down by train on way home.

Where a workman being dusted off by another workman, by means of air hose, gets an internal charge and dies of peritonitis.

Where a workman paid 50 cents a week extra to engage in fire drill for the employers' voluntary fire department was injured while so drilling.