R. H. Frazier & Son v. Leas

• Decision Date: 14 January 1916
• Docket Number: No. 95.,95.
• Parties: R. H. FRAZIER & SON et al. v. LEAS.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

96 A. 764
127 Md. 572

R. H. FRAZIER & SON et al.
v.
LEAS.

No. 95.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 14, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Henry Duffy, Judge.

96 A. 765

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Martin Leas, to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by R. H. Frazier & Son, the employer, and the Maryland Casualty Company, insurer. Compensation was awarded, the award confirmed by the superior court of Baltimore city, and the employer and insurer appeal. Judgment of the superior court reversed, and new trial awarded.

Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BURKE, THOMAS, URNER, STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.

Walter L. Clark, of Baltimore (George W. Dexter and Austin J. Lily, both of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants. Benj. L. Freeny, of Baltimore, for appellee.

BURKE, J. The appellants in this case made an application to the superior court of Baltimore city under section 55, c. 800, of the Act of 1914, known as the "Workmen's Compensation Law," for the review by that court of a decision of the State Industrial Accident Commission rendered against them on the 22d of July, 1915, in favor of Martin Leas, claimant, who is the appellee on this record. The order which the court was asked to review does not appear in the record, nor does the record contain a copy of any of the proceedings of the Commission, although it states that at the hearing of the appeal the court had before it a transcript of the testimony taken before the Commission. Enough, however, appears to enable us to pass upon the single question presented, which is a narrow one and involves a construction of the section of the Act referred to. The application by which the proceedings in the lower court was initiated stated facts which showed jurisdiction in that court to entertain the appeal, and that the appellants felt aggrieved by the decision of the Commission by the terms of which compensation was ordered to be continued from June 3, 1915. It further alleged that they felt that the Commission had not justly considered all the facts concerning the injury; that it had exceeded its powers under the act; and that it had misconstrued the law and the facts applicable to the case. At the hearing the appellants filed a motion to be allowed to introduce evidence in support of the appeal to show:

"(1) That the transcript of the testimony taken before the State Industrial Accident Commission does not contain all the facts upon which the...