ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17121, 16 April 1921, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

The Court of Arbitration—Mr Justice Frazer (president), Messrs, Wm. Scott (employers' representative), and J. A. McCuliough (employees' representative)—resumed yesterday, whsn the Christchureh sittings were concluded. ' I'AKili.K'S COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Henry ccott, i:\rmer, Lieruidine I Air W. D. Cainpoeu) sau o 'oi compensation irom ileiiry hi.i, liiiuitr, oefltloine Ulr W. J. Jiunter) in oi an uceAUui# fcllifOiCi by piaintiu lii tne course oi Hib employment on 2jtli, li/iu. Ine siaiiuiiiit of claim -alleged that a3 the result, oi the accident plaintiff had lost' his kit- log at tho hip, that no is still totally incapacitated, taut piaintill' was earning £S lis p-r week at tlie time ot-the acciaent, and teat aclonuant Had paiii two Mm, each of iiu, to pmuhill oil account of coinpensut:o»i tor tiie acci<l/;ui>.

His Honour said that from the pleadings it appeani,.t that. tlie only matter iu dispute was tix-> question oi tno umount oi deien'dant's liability. Mr Hunter said that there was no dispute as to facts . .

Mr Canipl>ell said that plaintiff was sixtyfour yeais of age, and had been empioyed for two days by tlie defendant during tne twelvo months prior to the accident. He put in ft certitbate by Dr. I'. W. Hislop, of Cieraldine, •datea Marcli 2nd, l'J2l, in wnich he stated that vlaiuufi s condition had not improved; there' was a certain amount of paresis {n type of paralysis.) of the lower part of the back, and after exertion there, was a great doat of pain; the right leg and thigh were very powerless, the circulation poor; tk:-;o was only a limited. amount oi uioveru3nt, and there was no ability to support the body; probably there was more injury to tho spina' thf.n was apparent at the time of the accident; Dr. Hislop considered that plaintiff would bo moio or less an invalid lor the rest of his life.

Replying to his Honour, Mr Campbell said that plttThtiU's employment was only for o&a day. Mr Jizatice Sim, in Livingstone v. Weatpoit-Stockton Coal Company, decided that '.ho proper method of computing compensation under Section 6 of the Act was to take Uto normal week's work, working full time. His Honour: Is there not a distinction between a man employed for a wesk us compared with a man employed for one day? Mr Campbell said there was no authority on the point, otherwise the not be boforo the Court. He cited M? Justice Stringer's decision in the Public Trustso v. Russell and Bigncll (17 Gazette Law fieports, 230), to the s\ibmission that Sub-section 1 of Section 6 applied to casual employment,; if Sub-Section 1 did not apply, then it was submitted that Sub-section 2 applied, and that compensation was payable on the amount a labourer would' normally earn in twelve months. The' defendant/ who was called by Mr CampboU, stated that during the past twelve .months the wages of a farm labourer wer» "between 14s and 15s per day; prior to that

i » _. the Iftst fiv© or period 13a per da J, {rom gs dgy tflS? pe S r artw" ior eicveu Wto out of Defendant was witness'*? To , had farmed a liitlo lax ol father-ia-law, ar.db but of his own for thirty or also workea b> the -' ■ .jav's w ork and years he had do , n f a h rTest Witness csti8t B^ha"'l a sf vcar a fortnight would mated inn* *. » » arnount of ,11 the time tost on «cw" f-fSS t k »Sa-.7 i%i£a-—i work and Counsel * submitted concurrent difference bethat tnere vaa only Irtish and New tween the sections of ' Balclutha Zealand Acts. He J- de _ Corporation (Vol. 1, tho amount cisions, pp. 13 ■*"?,. 'L_was taken as the earned m one <■ oj - Counae l further subAct did not apply " tf one d if the ing on hu own P la ,^j^- n tuc h a case the Legislature intended Jiat us rate into & contract for £3 i*« - iq*' if &. averag* that was not correct, bis earning sfr,r. r fS.KS,- s&a. ** h «*•* ~r.s. »»it En?!i S U decisions c Mf bedii not npply o\wn ? to correfsp onding secSTftrtitf «* the New Zealand is s%&g&3r&z »*»<« IN COMPENSATION « CASES. * the Court's judgment states:— It a P ff from the medical evidence that , man, though apparently a strove, healty was at the time of the accident IJ | * . :l disease known as spleno-mcdullai) leucn mia, which, however, had not manifested itself sufficiently to affect his capacity f vuk The preponderance of the medical testimony is to the effect that the accident, either bv causing hemorrhage within splcon, or more probably by reason of action of the sympathetic nervousJS a s* accelerated the progress of the disease. IB" may be properly accepted, «s tho c °" chl^ n i« a reasonable inference from proved facte, raid is the- only satisfactory explanation or the sudden change in plaintiffs physical condition. The disease itself is slow in its development. The consequences' of such an accident* if plaintiff had teen m ;,t the time, would liave been slight and of short duration. It is now over mne months w-co tho accident occurred, and the medical evidence shows that the plamhff »Jf nentlv totally incapacitated. If he had not uxot with tho accident the plaintiff-would, in the ordinary course, have been ab±e to contimio at wort for; possibly three years. In tfceso circumstances, we consider that a tei minable award should be made. (See itemnant v. Dempsey, 1950 G.L.K., 292). Th Ourt estimated tho probable length of tlie period of incapacity resulting from.the «c----cident-that is, the probable time by which the incapacity due to the progress of the disease itself has been accelerated by the accident-at two years from the date of the accident. " The Court awarded plaintiff weekly payments oil the basis of permanent total incapacity resulting from the accident continuing until June 23rd. 1922. Costs,JlO lOs, with witnesses' expenses, were allowed plaini h ln the case Tim Keohane, seaman, Lytteltoii GiV 0. T. J. Alp era) v. th© Blackball Coal Cbmpany, Ltd. (Mr G. H. Buchanan), o claim for the less of the sight of the left .eye, the Court in its judgment states:— .me evidence- ia very contradictory, and we danno find any justification for holding that the alleged accident was i* any way the cause of the destruction, of the sight of plaintiff s. eye. There is 'evidence that the eye was'inflamed, for some considerable time prior to January 24th, 1820 (the date of tho alleged accident), and the medical evidence leads us to the conclusion that the eight of the eye was probably lost long before that date. It is immaterial whether the'accident sworn to by the plaintiff really occurred. He says that EOme dust, or a eh, entered his eye,/but it may be'that the pain and irritation that he-felt were due solely to the progressive degeneration of the •eye resulting from an accident he met with some years previously. It is quite possible that an accentuation of the pain might lead hita to the conclusion that some foreign substance had ontered his eye, but, even ir this conclusion is correct, the medical evidence is quite clear that the accident of January 24th, 1920, did not result in injuring! or destroying the sight of that eye." Judgment was for the defendant 'Company, with £7 7a costs and disbursements and witnesses' expenses. AWARDS MADE.

The Canterbury butchers' award - embodies with alteration the recommendation of the Council of Conciliation. Part three, which' refers to the employment of females, waa agreed to bv the parties at tho hearing, and has been inserted by the Court at their request. Part three provides for the employment of females over the age of 17 as shop assistants in shops in which the sole business carried oi) is that of a pork butoher; hours of work not to exceed 47 per week; wages, first year 37s 6d- per week, second 455, third 52s 6d, thereafter 62s 6cH overtime, time and a half for first two hours, and thereafter double time, in addition, if required to work after the finishing time, to receive Is 6d foi" tea money. Pork butchers' shops "in which the sole business carried on is that of a port butcher" are exempted from clause .13 of the award which provides:—"Pursuant to section 9 of the Shrfpa and Offices Amendment Act, 1920, all ohops in this industry within a radius of ton miles from the Chief Post Office in the city of Christchurch, shall b«> closed as follows:—At the hour of 6 p.m. on five days of the week, and at 12 noon on the day;, of the half-holiday." Tho. award, as it. relates to wages,• is to be deemed to have come into force on December Ist, 1920; as to clauses 1 to 14 as on January Ist, 1921; and a* to other provisions as on April 14th, 1921; it is to remain in force till December 31st 1921. •

The award-made relating to shift engineers embodies without alteration the recommends tions of the Council of Conciliation, which the parties agreed to accept.' The union's application to exempt members of the Institute of Marine- Engineers from the preference clause granted. .The award, as it relatea to wages, is to oome into' force on; February 21st, 1921; as far as other conditions, as on April 15th, 1921; it is to remain in force till February-21st, 1923. .