The petition of the above-named applicant respectfully shows: 1. State address of applicant,

2. State occupation of applicant,

3. State address of respondent(s),

4. State general nature of claim in controversy, including time and place of accident,

5. State kind of relief demanded,

6. Wherefore the applicant prays that the said respondent be required to answer the charges herein and that an order or award be made by the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin granting such relief as the applicant may be entitled to in the premises.

NOTE-Either party to the dispute may apply to the commission for an adjustment of the matter in difference.

The original application and one copy for each respondent shall be mailed to the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

Wisconsin

FORM

Answer to application

(Form No. 9. Sec. 2394-16)

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN

Applicant,

VS.

Respondent.

The respondent above named for answer to the application herein respectfully shows:

1. (State all facts in application that are admitted not to be in dispute.)

2. (State pertinent facts in reply to application, that are in dispute.)

3. (State such additional facts as may constitute a defense or partial defense.)

4. Wherefore the respondent prays (stating relief asked.)

(Signed)

Respondent.

NOTE-The respondent shall answer the application within five days from the date that a copy of the application is served upon him.

The original answer shall be mailed to the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin at Madison, Wis., and a copy thereof served upon the applicant by respondent either personally or by mailing to the address given in the application.

Forms adopted by the Commission, excepting accident report forms are printed on blanks 8% x 11 inches, and same will be furnished to parties upon request.

The question of the right to appeal depends almost entirely on statutes under modern procedure. Some general principles not covered by particular statutes are now and then decided by the courts. The decisions which follow have been selected from the British reports as applicable to some phases of the compensation laws.of the American States.

Reviewing facts

2. Points raised below only considered on appeal.

An appeal by an employer cannot be entertained on points which were not taken in the court below. Payne and Another v. Clifton (1910), 3 B. W. C. C. 439.

3. Reviewing facts.

Where the facts are either found or admitted, the only question to be decided is the inference to be drawn from those facts, which is a question of law; and it is open to the Court of Appeal in such a case to review the conclusion at which the learned County Court judge arrived, and to say whether it is or is not wrong in point of law, and whether or not he has misdirected himself. Gane v. Norton Hill Colliery Co. (1909), 100 L. T. 979; 2 B. W. C. C. 42.

An appeal to the Court of Appeal in England must be dismissed when it is on purely a question of fact. Rayman v. Fields, No. 2 (1910), 102 L. T. R. 154; 3 B. W. C. C. 123.

A workman was injured and was paid compensation for twenty-one weeks. The employers then stopped payment and disputed liability of any kind, including even the occurrence of an accident. Arbitration proceedings were brought by the workman and terminated in favor of the employer. Subsequently the workman applied to the County Court judge to have the implied agreement recorded. The judge refused on the ground that he had already found, as a fact, no personal injury had occurred arising out of or in the course of the workman's employment on the date alleged, and that the payments which had already been made were in the nature of a compassionate allowance, and that there was no agreement. On appeal to the Court of Appeal it was held that these were findings of fact, with which the appellate court could not interfere. Turner v. G. Bell and Sons (1910), 4 B. W. C. C. 63.

A workman with an injured hand was advised by his own doctor that he could not recover the use of it, but the employers' doctor advised that he ought to exercise it, and that

Dismissal of action and making decision in arbitration proceedings he would soon recover if he did so. He did not exercise it, and the employers applied for a review of the weekly payments on the ground that the incapacity was due not to the injury but to the unreasonable conduct of the man in not exercising the hand. The County Court judge held that the man had not behaved unreasonably and dismissed the application to review. It was held on appeal that the question was one of fact, and there was evidence to support the decision. Moss & Co. v. Akers (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 294.

4. Determining adequacy of lump sum paid under agreement.

An agreement for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum was sent to a registrar to record. It appearing inadequate, the registrar under the powers given him by Schedule II (9) (d), referred it to the judge. The judge, holding that the sole question for him to decide was whether the agreement had in fact been made, declined to decide the question of adequacy. It was held on appeal that the case must go back for the question of adequacy to be decided. Owners of the Steamship "Segura" v. Blampied (1911), 4 B. W. C. C. 192.

5. Order terminating weekly payments not appealed from is final.

An order terminating weekly payments is, unless appealed from, final, and the original agreement or order is not then the subject of review. Nicholson v. Piper (1906), 96 L. T. 75; 9 W. C. C. 123, aff'd, House of Lords (1907), A. C. 215; 97 L. T. 119; 9 W. C. C. 128.

6. Dismissal of action and making decision in arbitration proceedings.

Where in an action under the Employers' Liability Act the judge dismissed the action and then came to the conclusion that no compensation was payable under the Workmen's