Welch v. Essex County, A--47

Decision Date16 January 1950
Docket NumberNo. A--47,A--47
Citation70 A.2d 779,6 N.J.Super. 184
PartiesWELCH v. ESSEX COUNTY.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Alexander Avidan, Newark, argued the cause for respondent (Avidan & Avidan, Newark, attorneys).

Thomas J. Brett, Newark, argued the cause for appellant (O'Brien, Brett & O'Brien, Newark, attorneys).

Before Judges JACOBS, DONGES and BIGELOW.

The opinion of the court was delivered

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from two judgments of the Essex County Court, entered by Judge Hartshorne in Workmen's Compensation proceedings that had been consolidated for trial. There were two questions in the County Court: whether a certain deposition taken in one proceeding was admissible in the other, and whether the accident aggravated and accelerated the condition of cancer which first incapacitated the employee and eventually caused his death. The appellant concedes that the County Court correctly decided that the deposition was evidential in both causes, and confines the argument to the fact question of aggravation. On this question we adopt the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Hartshorne reported in 6 N.J.Super. 422, 68 A.2d 787. The judgments will be affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Dwyer v. Ford Motor Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 22, 1962
    ...Law, § 12.20, p. 175. See also: Welch v. County of Essex, 6 N.J.Super. 422, 68 A.2d 787 (Cty.Ct.1949), affirmed 6 N.J.Super. 184, 70 A.2d 779 (App.Div.1950); Milne v. Atlantic Machine Tool Works, Inc., 137 N.J.L. 583, 61 A.2d 225 (Sup.Ct.1948); Voorhees v. Schoonmaker, 86 N.J.L. 500, 92 A. ......
  • Misani v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., A--868
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 11, 1964
    ...the respective actions is not substantially identical. Welch v. County of Essex, 6 N.J.Super. 422, 68 A.2d 787 (Cty.Ct.1949), affirmed, 6 N.J.Super. 184, 70 A.2d 779 (App.Div. 1950). In fact, it is substantially It is argued that there was error in not instructing the jury to take into cons......
  • Pierce v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 9, 1957
    ...courts, and therefore would be admissible in this cause. Welch v. Essex County, 1949, 6 N.J.Super. 422, 68 A.2d 787 affirmed 6 N.J.Super. 184, 70 A.2d 779; Hagerman v. Lewis Lumber Co., 1952, 24 N.J.Super. 120, 93 A.2d 632; Mid-City Bank & Trust Co. v. Reading Co., D.C.N.J.1944, 3 F.R.D. Bu......
  • Celeste v. Progressive Silk Finishing Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 1, 1962
    ...N.J.Super. 90, 101, 135 A.2d 339 (App.Div.1957), reversed on other grounds 26 N.J. 445, 140 A.2d 215 (1958); Welch v. County of Essex, 6 N.J.Super. 184, 70 A.2d 779 (App.Div.1950); Milne v. Atlantic Machine Tool Works, Inc., 137 N.J.L. 583, 61 A.2d 225 (Sup.Ct.1948); Vorhees v. Schoonmaker,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT