ness accumulated large amounts of what is known as 'film scraps.' These film scraps were put in bags by the film company and set outside of the door and the deceased was in the habit of taking them away. Just where he took them and what he did with them, so far as the film company is concerned, is not disclosed, although he probably shipped them out of the city. The place for putting the coal into the coal bins for the boilers was on the outside of the building, and was covered with a tight-fitting cover that would not admit the free passage of any substance except when uncovered. Film scraps in some quantity were thrown out on the street or from some cause accumulated occasionally or at times around the place where the coal was brought into the building. On or about seven o'clock in the evening the tenth of November, 1914, Casparson was seen in the basement of the building attempting to extinguish a fire in the coal in and about the boiler and engine room. In this attempt he became suffocated by the fumes or smoke from a fire in the boiler room, collapsed and fell on the floor. He was carried out and in a short time was restored and went back into the boiler room and adjusted and moved some boxes in which there were possibly some film scraps. Bags of film scraps were found at various places in and about the basement of the building the next day after the fire, some of which, from appearances in the room, may have been taken from the boiler room after the fire. The deceased said to some witnesses who testified in the case, in substance, that someone had set fire to the film scraps and that he must get what remained out of the rooms or he would possibly lose his job. The deceased returned to his home and died early the next morning from the inhaling of poisonous gases or from suffocation, the result of the fire in the boiler room. The deceased, Casparson, was paid by the Standard Film Exchange fifty cents a week for taking the film scraps away. He was quite frequently, especially on Tuesday evenings, in the building after his usual

hours of employment. On the occasion he was injured, after the injury he returned to the boiler room and put coal into the boiler. Film scraps are of a very inflammable character."

We do not understand the recital of the facts to sustain the claim that they are conclusive the fire was caused by film scraps clandestinely brought upon the employer's premises by Casparson in furtherance of his own personal and private interests and that it would not otherwise have occurred. It is recited in the Industrial Board's decision that Casparson was in the habit of removing bags of film scraps set outside the door of the film company's rooms, for which service he was paid fifty cents per week by the film company. Where he took them or what he did with them is not shown. The board found that when Casparson entered the boiler room the second time he adjusted and moved some boxes, "in which there were possibly some film scraps." The board further found film scraps in some quantity were thrown or accumulated on the street around the covered opening through which coal was brought into the building. There is no finding that the fire occurred from film scraps. The nearest approach to it is the recital that deceased said, in substance, to some witnesses who testified, that someone had set fire to the film scraps and he must get away what remained or he would possibly lose his job. The board found that bags of film scraps were found in various places in the basement next day after the fire, but it does not find there was any indication they had been on fire. The recital of facts states that about seven o'clock in the evening Casparson was seen in the basement "attempting to extinguish a fire in the coal" in the engine and boiler room, and all he did after he entered the boiler room the second time was to adjust and move some boxes, "in which there were possibly some film scraps," but nowhere is there any finding. that the fire originated in or was caused by film scraps, much less in film scraps brought into the room by Caspar

son in his own private interest. Nor does it appear from the recital of facts that Casparson's presence an hour after his day had ended under the terms of his employment was caused by his employment by the film company to remove its scraps. The mere fact that at the time of the accident Casparson's day's service, according to the terms of his employment, had ended, is not sufficient to authorize a reversal of the finding that the accident arose out of and was received in the course of his employment. The Industrial Board found that upon his return to the boiler room the second time he put in some coal. An employee should not be penalized for working overtime if he wishes to do so or for endeavoring to save his master's property. Dragovich v. Iroquois Iron Co. 269 Ill. 478; Ruegg on Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation, (8th ed.) 346.

The circuit court and this court are bound by the decision of the Industrial Board if there is any legal evidence to support it. (Sexton v. Newark District Telegraph Co. [N. J.] 3 N. C. C. A. 569; Bayne v. Riverside Storage and Cartage Co. [Mich.] 5 id. 837.) It is not claimed this court can weigh and determine the preponderance of the evidence, but the claim, in substance, is, that the facts recited show, without contradiction, that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Without further adverting to the facts recited by the board upon which it based its decision, we do not think the conclusion contended for by plaintiffs in error is warranted.

At the request of plaintiffs in error the Industrial Board made seven special findings of fact, but none of them are inconsistent with its decision.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

THE COMMISSIONERS OF INLET SWAMP DRAINAGE DISTRICT, Appellees, vs. IRA COOPER, Appellant.

Opinion filed June 22, 1916.

DRAINAGE—what does not justify annexation of land under section 58 of the Levee act. Lands which are naturally dominant to the lands of a drainage district cannot be annexed to the district, under section 58 of the Levee act, where the owner has done nothing since the organization of the district to connect the lands with its ditches or drains, and where the evidence fails to show that the lands are benefited, within the meaning of the statute.

APPEAL from the County Court of Lee county; the Hon. JOHN B. CRABTREE, Judge, presiding.

lant.

GARDNER & GARDNER, and JOHN E. ERWIN, for appel

HENRY S. DIXON, GEORGE C. DIXON, and GRover W. GEHANT, for appellees.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE CRAIG delivered the opinion of the

court:

Appellees, the commissioners of Inlet Swamp Drainage District, in Lee county, filed their petition in the county court of that county to annex certain lands to said district, among other tracts the west half of the northeast quarter of section 29, in Alto township, in said county,— under section 58 of the Levee act. They alleged as grounds for such annexation that the owners of the lands sought to be annexed had made connection with the ditches or drains within the district or that said lands are or may be benefited by the work of such district. Certain of the land owners, including appellant, appeared and filed objections to the petition, among others that none of said pieces or parcels of land have been or now are connected with any ditches or drains within the district, nor are said several pieces or parcels, or any of them, benefited, nor will they

be benefited, as a result of the existence of the ditches of said drainage district or the work done or proposed to be done on such ditches as originally planned; that all of the several pieces and parcels of land are fully and completely drained by natural water-courses and drains, and that the work of the said drainage district is not necessary to said. lands for the purpose of drainage thereof. Evidence was heard on the objections, and the court made a personal examination of the lands petitioned to be annexed to said -district and entered an order dismissing the petition as to certain lands and ordering that certain other lands, including the west half of the northeast quarter of said section 29, (the land of appellant,) be annexed to the district. Appellant has appealed to this court, assigning as error that the order is contrary to the law and the evidence.

The only error relied upon by counsel for appellant in their argument is that the evidence is not sufficient to justify the order of the court in annexing the land of appellant under section 58 of the Levee act.

From the evidence it appears that the Inlet Swamp Drainage District was organized in 1887 and ditches were dug in said district in 1888. The district included about 30,000 acres of land, taking in portions of Alto, Viola, Bradford, Lee Center, Willow Creek and Reynolds townships, in Lee county. The district is oblong in shape, and is about ten miles long from southwest to northeast and about four miles wide. The land of appellant is situated just outside the northeast corner of the original district. The drainage of the district is toward the southwest. The lands in the district are servient to the land of appellant ordered to be annexed to the district. Among other ditches in the district, one known as the Cooper lateral extended to a point half a mile south and half a mile west of the southwest corner of appellant's land, and it was proposed to clean out and deepen and extend this Cooper lateral to a point on or near the south line of said land. Several years prior to