Smith v Mann [1932] HCA 30

426 HIGH COURT

H.C. or A. to the taxpayer's actual expenditure upon the purpose for 1932.

she receives the income, I shall do no more than remit the as to the Commissioner.

Feperab Appeal allowed with costs. Assessment set asi Be 2 and remitted to the Commissioner of Tax

TAXATION. mae Solicitors for the appellant, Blake & Riggall. Foll, o> Solicitor for the respondent, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor

'Australia Sula yaus Eade, the Commonwealth.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

SMUD sheng) APPLICANT,

AND

MANN AND OTHERS she REsPoNnDENTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. or A. Workers' Compensation—Injury—Disease—Contracted by gradual process—M

1932, brought about or contributed to by employment during twelve months

baa ar disablement—Necessity of proof—Disease incidental to employment in que Sypwey, Cause—Condition of worker—Certificate of Medical Board—Conelusi April 6,7; Case stated to Supreme Court subsequent to award—Appeal therefrom to Hi

Aug. 4. Court—Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (N.S.W.) (No. 15 of 1926), secs. 6*

san Duty (1)*, (4)*, 374, 51 (3)*— The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), sec. 73 , Rich,

Starke, Dixon Where a worker has contracted a disease which is of such a nature as and MeTiernan

contracted by a gradual process, it is not necessary for him, on an appli for compensation in accordance with sec. 7 (4) of the Workers' Co Act 1926 (N.S.W.), to establish that the disease was actually brought

*The Workers' Compensation Act his place of employment, and to. 1926 (N.S.W.), provided :—By sec. 6; the employment was a contri "Injury? means personal injury, and factor, but does not include a d includes' a disease which is contracted caused by silica dust." By see. by the worker in the course of his '(1) A worker who receives pet employment, whether at or away from injury . . . in the course