ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16167, 22 March 1918, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT.

COMPENSATION CASES. r

T h<? Arbitration Court resumed its C'hristchurch sittings yesterday morning. His Honour Mr Justice. Stringer presided. and with him were Messrs J. A. McCullough (workers' representative) and W . Scott (employers' representative). TWAIX r. ENSOR. Sarah 3lil]er Brain, of Kaiapoi, claimed from Hugh Ensor. of Eakahuri Station. t!ic sum of £500 compensation, the costs of tho action, funeral expenses, and such judgment as the Court considered just in connexion with the death of her husband, Charles William Brain. I'lyintiff sot forth In her statement of ej.aim that she was the widow of Charles 'Wilham Hrain, who had been employed by defendant as gardener, and while thus employed had sustained injuries from which lie died at Kaiapoi on December 22nd, ]!'l6. He left, besides his widow, seven children. Mr J. C'assidy appeared for the plaintiff and Mr J. J. Dougall for the defendant. Jn her evidence, plaintiff said that Mrs Ensor had told her that her husband had suffered injury through strain.. She had been separated from her husband about 10 or l'J years, and had obtained a maintenance order against him of 10s per week. She was not aware that he was ii heavy drinker. Annie Puddle gave evidence as to having been present at Mrs Brain's home when deceased, shortly before his death, had stated in hef presence that his injuries had been caused by strain through pushing a roller. Dr. John Guth rie said that ho had I attended dec-eased in Christchiirch Hospital. Xothing could be done for him, and he was removed to his own home. He assumed the man to be suffering from a ma/ignaut growth, the development of which any strain would I accelerate. .

lo his Honour: A man suffering from a malignant growth would perhaps live | two years, but such an accident, would j bring about death in two mouths. I I'or the dnlence, it was submitted j that it was not as the result, of an accident arising out ol Brain's employment as gardener that he met his death. It was also denied that Brain had 'left, totally dependent, upon him tho plaintiff and the seven children whose names were set out in the statement of claim. his statement, Hugh Ensor, sheep-farmer, said that he had employed Brain at a wage of 22s 6d a week and found. His Honour said that the' evidence as to the cause of Brain's death was very unsatisfactory. Dr. Thomas Arthur "Will gave evidence as to having attended deceased. He could not attribute the man's condition to strain. His Honour said that no matter how sympathetic the Court might be, it could not be said that it had been established to the Court's satisfaction that the man had died from strain caused by his employment. The case was one of extreme doubt. The man had apparently contracted a malignant disease, which had followed the ordinary course. Under all the circumstances it would be unreasonable to assume that the plaintiff's case had been proved. Judgment would be for defendaut, with seven guineas costs. MORRIS v. MOFFET. On the Court resuming Mr Cuninghani stated that the case Morris v. Mo/f'et, a claim for damages, had been settled out of* Court.

MASON v. WILLIAMS BROS! David Henry .Mason, machinist .(Mr Cuningham), sought to obtain a declaration as to the liability of Williams Brothers, furniture manufacturers, of Christchurch (Mr Andrews), for such compensation as ho was entitled to under the Workers' Compensation Act. Plaintiff stated that he had been employed by Williams Bros., • an<l while engaged at work on a circular saw he had received injuries to his left hand. He had been an inmate of the Christchurch Hospital for 10 days, and had afterwards been an outpatient. On h;s discbarge he had gone back to his forme." employment, but the accident had so affected him that ho was very nervous witi.L • any tiling connected with machinery. His left hand -was badiy affected, and he could not bend three of his fingers. Dr. W. fl. Simpson gave evidence as to having examined the boy when he was admitted to the hospital. .His Iclt hand had a deep cut across the palm. Witness had examined the hand again a week ago, and had found a greatly diminished power of action. He considered the earning power of plaintiff in his usual employment *vas diminished by 75 per cent." If there were n future improvement it would not be equal to more than 15 per cent. ;

Corroborative evidence was given oy Dr. John Guthrie. David Henry Mason, plaintiff's father, a furnacetnnn, gave evidence as to his soil's injuries." He had not allowed the boy to continue in the finploy of Williams Bros., as he did r,ot want hi in to do only odd jobs. He wished him to learn a trade, as ]ie coujd not follow his old one. I'or the defence, Arthur George Williams, furniture manufacturer, said he had employed the boy as an apprentice. He was a good boy and a good worker. After the boy had left the hospital witness wanted to re-employ him and to give him suitable light eniployment until it could be determined whether his hand would sufficients '■••n----prove to allow him to again work as a machinist. When the lad returned to work he had put him at a machine which could be worked with one hand, but lie had left after half a day's work. Dr. Foster said he had examined the boy's injuries. He differed from fhe opinion of previous medical witnesses. He thought with requisite exercise ;-.nd movement the hand was capable of great improvement. He had se?n worse eases improve almost to normal. Evidence was also given by Dr. Slater and Dr. Will, house-surgeon at the Christehurch Hospital. His Honour said that the case presented many difficult features. -Judgment would be reserved. °

ENGINEERS' AWARD. Tlie Court has made an order varying sub-clausc (c) of Clause 5 of tlie. award of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers affecting tinsmiths and other workers. The variation consists of the deletion of the words, "a, war bonus of 3s per week," and the sulv stitution therefor tho words "n war bonus of 3d per hour." The alteration takes effect on April loth.