Clаimant commenced this proceeding for compensatiоn for the loss of sight of an eye, which he claims resulted from a strain сaused by lifting a heavy sill in the construction of a building by the Standard Oil Compаny.
The board refused to permit the witness Lobdell to testify that, about two hours after lifting the sill, claimant told him that he believed he had strained himself or had lifted too hard. The board also refused to permit testimоny by one Twilliger that, on the evening of the day of the alleged injury, clаimant said he would not need his tool box if his eye did not improve.
The Industrial Accident Board found that no notice of the injury was given the employer, or any officer or agent thereof, “as soon as practicable after the happening thereof”; (O. S., sec. 6243) that no notice was given until about the 9th of July, 1926 (the date of the accident being *210 on or about July 15, 1925); that it was not shown that the employer, its agents or representatives, had knowledge of the accident, оr that the employer was not prejudiced by delay or want of notice. The board also found that 1 ‘ claimant’s loss of vision and his blindness are not the result of any injury by accident arising out of and in the coursе of his employment” with the Standard Oil Company.
The board dismissed the proceeding, and the district court, on appeal, held that the board had erred in refusing to admit the proffered testimony, reversed thе cause and directed the board to conduct a further hearing and admit the rejected testimony. It is from the judgment of the district court that this appeal is prosecuted.
The question for determination is whether the board erred in refusing to permit the witnesses Lobdell and Twilliger to testify to statements, respecting the alleged injury, made somе hours after its occurrence. The proffered evidencе was purely hearsay and its rejection would seem to have bеen proper in a court of law. Of course the accident board is not a court, and is not so bound by the strict rules of evidencе. It was recently held in
Butler v. Anaconda, Copper Mining Co.,
Conceding even thаt the proffered evidence had probative value and should have been admitted, it tended solely to
*211
establish the alleged injury аnd had no relation to the question of notice. Having failed to show that the employer, its agents or representatives, had knowledge of the accident or that the employer had not been prejudiced by such delay or want of notice (C. S., see. 6246), claimant could not recover.
(Bodah v. Coeur d’Alene Mill Co.,
The judgment is reversed. Costs to appellants.