ARBITRATION COURT.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18231, 15 November 1924, Page 4

ARBITRATION COURT.

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

I William Henry Evans, carpenter, of Christchurch (Mr C. S. Thomas), Maimed from J and W. Jameson, Ltd., buiideis, of Christchurch (Mr A. T. Donnelly) a weck - y pay _ ment of £2 17s 5d from August 10th, i<)23 to the present date and compensation as might seem to the Court to be reasonable. The firm had paid compensation at the rate of £3 17s 5d a. week from the date of the accident to August 10th, 1923. a counter-claim was filed for the remission of the amount of compensation already paia on the ground that if the wrist was injured it was not done in the course of his employment. . His Honour Mr Justice Frazer presided, with Mr W. Scott as employers' representative and Mr H. Hunter as workers' representative. Mr Thomas stated that Evans was workin°- on a building for the defendant company. He bad been working en the roof of a. house, which was being repaired by the firm, and it started to rain. The foreman put him to work inside the house stripping some plaster off the walls with a spade. After an hour or twa the defendant felt a pain in his wrist and had been laid u» for some time. The injury was consistent with jarring on such a job, as stripping pl?ster from a wall with a spade. Mr Donnelly stated that there was nothing to prove that the accident was caused while in the firm's employ. When the plaintiff alleged that the accident happened ho made no comoiaint to the foreman or any member of the firm at the time, and his actions were inconsistent with the fact that it had happened in Jameson's employment, for he did not menion it until some time after. Evidence was ?iven by the plaintiff, the employers, and Drs. P. S. Foster and J. L. A. Will. _, ~ His Honour saidlha-t the case was purely one of f?ct!» On the dsj of the alleged accident the plaintiff was token off his own work, because it tm wet, and was told to scale some plaster off one of the walls inside the house that was being repaired. There was not actunl corroborative evidence of the nccident itself, and- notice had not been aiven o it until some time afterwards. But the injury was most likely to have been caused tSough jarring and the Court felt Justified iTconcluding that the acodent was ,ft„ jarring whirf chipping the plaster. The claim was rather a. large on* and the question was. how much a J nou J d . be ,?" ow t f " The medical evidence had shown that the i •■ UfP.' nrm should have been right in Member, M-. Therefore, compensation wouW be allowed up to December Ist.