OLD INJURY, OR NEW?

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 232, 1 October 1928, Page 5

OLD INJURY, OR NEW?

WORKER'S EYE REMOVED. CLAIM FOR £560 COMPENSATION. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) HAMILTON, this day. A claim for £560 compensation for the loss of liis right eye was made to-day by James Eckford, shop manager, of Te Kuiti, in the Arbitration Court, Emily Maria Cotter and Frances Elizabeth Cotter, butchers, of Te Kuiti, were the defendants. Plaintiff said that in February his right eye was accidentally injured by a small fragment of bone or similar substance. His eye became greatly inflamed and finally it was removed on March 5. The defence admitted that plaintiff's eye had been removed, but denied that its removal was due directly or indirectly, to any accident or injury in the course of employment. Mr. E. M. Mackersey, for the plaintiff, said it was true that plaintiff had previously had trouble with his eye. Wheu he was a boy of 14 it was injured by the bursting of a lemonade bottle. It became inflamed from time to time, but the trouble was not of frequent occurrence. The eye was of good commercial use. After medical evidence had been heard the case was adjourned until Friday, when the Court will be in Auckland.