He was injured while on his way on foot to arrange for the preparation and care of a dressed hog, and to deliver a package of meat. While the accident occurred in the course of the employment, and the workman as the driver of the delivery wagon was within the act, compensation was denied because the workman was not injured while engaged in work incidental to the hazardous employment. See, also, Sickles v. Balliston etc. Co., 171 App. Div. 108, 156 N.Y. Supp. 864; Wincheski v. Morris, 179 App. Div. 600, 166 N.Y. Supp. 873; Compton v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 41, 122 N.E. 872; Seggebruch v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 163, 123 N.E. 276; Kramer v. Industrial Acc. Com., supra. In the case at bar, the undisputed evidence clearly showed that the workman's injury was not sustained in an extra-hazardous employment, and his claim, therefore, was not within the statute.

The fact that the claimant at times was acting as street commissioner and at other times was engaged in fixing the water works or the electric light appliances does not change the situation. ( Matter of Glatzl v. Stumpp, 220 N.Y. 71; Matter of Gleisner v. Gross Herbener, 170 App. Div. 37; Wincheski v. Morris, 179 id. 600; 166 N.Y. Supp. 873.) The award should, therefore, be reversed and the claim dismissed.