dinner pail were yet on the stage. It was also his duty to look after the tools and those were kept on the stage. The coroner a physician testified:There were a few little minor abrasions slight linear wounds on the top of the head and a contusion on the back of the head on the left side over Christian Louboutin Outlet the occiput. After removing the skull I found a contusion over the temple. The wound on the top of the head was just a slight abrasion inch or inch and a half long.I should judge that the one on the top would be sufficient to stun him.He died from the result of Christian Louboutin Outlet the fracture.It was certainly a reasonable Inference that Nike Air Max 90 the fracture was caused by a fall from the stairway onto the cement floor and that the fall came from hitting his head against the crossbeam. No other cause for his death is even suggested and in the report of the accident by the employer to the Industrial Accident Board it was said: It Is supposed that injured fell from stairway.It is undoubtedly true that the deceased was on his way from the basement to the stage for the purpose of getting his clothing or to look after the tools or both. There is no other apparent reason for his having been on the stairway. If his purpose was to look after the tools that was clearly within the line of his employment. If he was after his clothing that also was within the line of his employment As was said In Hills v. BlairMichN. W. :It is held that the employment is not limited by the exact time when the workman reaches the scene of his labor and begins Nike Air Max it nor when he ceases but includes a reasonable time space and opportunity before and after while he is at or near his place of employmentWe also agree with the Supreme Court of New Jersey when It said:The preparation reasonably necessary for beginning work after the employers premises are reached and for Nike Shoes Australia leaving when the work is over is a part of the employment. A workman is none the less in the course of employment because he is engaged in changing his street clothes for his working clothes or in changing his working clothes for his street clothes.The employment was not indeed the proximate cause of the accident but it was a cause in the sense Coach Outlet Store Online that but for the employment the accident would not have happened. The employment was one of the necessary antecedents to the accident. Terlccki v. StraussN. J. LawAtlTerlecki v. StrausN. J. LawAtl And see Re SundineMassN. E L. R. A. AWe think that the Industrial Accident Board was warranted In finding that the injury arose out of and In the course of his employment But the amount of compensation allowed by the Industrial Accident Board seems greater than the evidence justifies. The average annual earnings of the deceased must have been fixed by the board ata year in order to produce a compensation of . per week. The evidence In the ease does not seem to show such an annual earning. The only testimony was that of a son of the deceased who said:My father Coach Outlet Store Online earneda day at the Hydraulic Engineering Company; had worked for them for two years. He Nike Australia was steadily employed when they had work. I should judge he worked about Coach Outlet Store Online nine months out of the year. When he wasnt working for the Hydraulic Company during the real