WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. 3141

ment of costs and the fees of medical and other witnesses shall apply. Ap-
peal shall lie from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County or
the Common Law Courts of Baltimore City to the Court of Appeals as in
other civil cases, and such appeals, shall have precedence over all cases
except criminal cases.

The attorney-general shall be the legal adviser of the Commission and
shall represent it in all proceedings whenever so requested by any of the
commissioners. In all court proceedings under or pursuant to this article,
the decision of the Commission shall be prima facie correct and the bur-
den of proof shall be upon the party attacking the same.

Practice, evidence, prayers.

There is nothing in this section which attempts to confine trial (on appeal) to testi-
mony taken before commission. A jury trial implies the right of either party to
call witnesses; party attacking decision of commission may upon appeal introduce
any proper oral evidence. The legislature intended to secure to appellant benefit of
art. 15, sec. 6, of the Constitution. Frazier v. Leas, 127 Md. 575. And see American
Ice Co. v. Fitzhugh, 128 Md. 385; Bethlehem Corp v. Simmons, 143 Md. 509.

The practice under the clause of this section requiring the submission to jury of
questions of fact considered. The issues should be analogous to those sent from
orphans' court or from courts of equity, and should be confined to ultimate issues
involved in finding of commission. Hernia. Evidence of medical experts. Prayers.
Schiller v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., 137 Md. 240. And see Bethlehem Corp v. Simmons,
143 Md. 510.

This section does not revive practice that grew up under act of 1894, ch. 185

repealed by act of 1900, ch. 641), authorizing special findings of fact by jury.

Refusal of question of fact which presents only real issue in case not ground for

reversal. Proper practice is to present questions of fact to court so that they may

be passed upon before jury is sworn. Central Construction Co. v. Harrison. 137

Md. 258.

Case involving whether an aneurism resulted from a blow received in the course of
employment. Burden of proof. Evidence. Prayers. This section does not mean
that evidence must be offered in court in addition to that before commission.
Stewart & Co. v. Howell, 136 Md. 433.

Burden of proof.

In view of the portion of this section, dealing with burden of proof, lower court

would not have been justified in ruling as a matter of law that an injury did not

occur in course of, and arise out of, claimant's employment—see notes to sec. 65.

Prayers. Thistle Mills v. Sparks, 137 Md. 121; Coastwise, etc., Co. v. Tolson. 132

Md. 206; Jewel Tea Co. v. Weber, 132 Md. 178; Bell v. Steen, 137 Md. 392.

Employer held not, as a matter of law, to have met burden of proof imposed by

this section—see notes to sec. 65. Bea'sman v. Butler, 133 Md. 384.

Generally.

While an insurance carrier may appeal from a decision of commission, such ap-
peal must be taken, in county where accident occurred and where insurance was ob-
tained, and not in county where the main office of insurance company is situated.
Purpose of workmen's compensation law; how it will be construed. If a state car-
ried insurance, its appeal from a decision of the commission would have to be
made in court for county where business was obtained, and not to Anne Arundel or
Baltimore city courts. Brenner v. Brenner, 127 Md. 192.

Where compensation has been awarded against an employer, latter may not there-
after set aside the award in equity on the ground of mistake, in that claimant was
not its employee. When equity will relieve on ground of mistake. Where an ap-
peal is provided by statute, such appeal is exclusive as to objections going to
legality or regularity of proceeding. U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Taylor, 136 Md. 545.

The right to open and close argument follows burden of proof, and hence upon
appeal appellant has such right. American Ice Co. v. Fitzhugh, 128 Md. 383.

An appeal not taken in time, as provided by this section, must be dismissed, as
court is without jurisdiction. Holland Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 136 Md. 78.

An order of commission denying motion to reopen a case is appealable. Bethle-
hem Corp. v. Simmons, 143 Md. 507.