THE BARTON CASE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 702, 30 December 1909, Page 5

THE BARTON CASE.

; ~STATEiffiNT/BY^THE: HON.T. TV.- ■. •■■'. ; a;jTjEY.-.v,i -"^; 1 &£ tt^ 1 ?' euch-severo ' i ] SHf S ' - hro . Ws,,Par, coUidiag witli i ?„ & l a te-owncd lorry,: the Hon.-!.' • •!• IM 0 * Mayor of Wellington/and ! o»,„~r • P°,? tIOII ,WS : immediately' con- • ;«ernfid;in. the settlement o£--the case 1 w. a D ?v im S oN representative :; ?£v „i-*? ■:■<», too Barton-;case;-. which, ,- took jlace-in the .House: en 'ruesdav i Mr-, aslop'stated,that:he could not mderstand the attitude of; the Prime Minover the matter. Asked to makeistate^ ■ ment; ne .said:—;•. .'''•;..' ? ■ ;"If the.Stata lorry.'had been the chat- .• PUblio .one/ there would have been two , courses .open ito .Barton. v'ln the 'first M could, have olaimed against. the Ck)r- ., porahon ; the-'amount ' allowed: by -the - :- Wor fers,' Compensation -in which ! *u i ■ ,oor P°ration ■■ might hav'o been , : *. b ' 9 , to-recover ;froin the owner.by estab- > lishing,carelessness. 'on ,the;part of the ) driver of/the lorry;:: or,' secondly,-' he : (Jiartonr could.have personally sued the ;.- owner, of tho lorry- Mr "damages. But, as tholorry-;was.oiaied'by.the.State; the , P 0 ,?. 11 ! 011 ' 66 em«l to be '■ quite different. which; of course, should not be so. -The [. corporation.would have paid Barton Ms i wages -pending •an arrangement, but I ,: understood solicitor: advised that it might, compromise his position if ho >.- accepted,such. wages.!.'.;-..'•, ,-.-.: ..- ri I -^ 5 : nothing improper! in .the' City j Council taking up. the'position-that the owner of the.lorry was legally responsible . for tue injury sustained'by;Barton, and .. entering' into 'an -.arrangement to- assist ... .mJiaying the- case 'settled.. I consider . tuat the,principle to;be applied-to this; ■ ..as,other..cases,, should-be that the'.per- { ""P..il«ying-anything -should receive his r ultimate idemwty,from: those-who caused s the injury.-.That :scems to me only prim- - - -1 really cannot understand -. the warmth displayed by the Prime.MinI™*, or, the Minister for. Public..Works. ir* language they used. in speaking of | the council was.quite unwarranted; : f ' \ lne injustice- is /that where': trading interests ' were concerned - the. Government is not -responsible. for '-; .its. notions,*; If the Department'is afraid i- of a'jury sslected-'from thepeople'; there s is an- easy; alternative, by arguing' the a oase. before./a judge, with',.or'; without [ - assessors.":■■-.■. ■•..'-.-■■. I ; ,:;';;an explanation;:; .-■:': i ■■'■■■'■■ :,' y< :---::— —-".-'- A v 'FEOM THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S <.-":;"/-;-'.-,vSTAiirppprNT. : ;v. ?, 1 '•'»' r ;, 'Hammond, local manager for tho. South British. Insurance Com; ■■: pany.on being- consulted with reference /■ to points. raised' in the debate in. the Houso on.the.Barton Case, states that ; . there aro still certain misunderstandings ; in some minds as ; to, the conditions unhis company paid :over the . ~£lsO to Barton in terms of the-general cover, issued-to; tho ■■Wellington , City t. ; Council.- -He states distinctly that' there was no-mention of a refund at all in tho ,-■ original agreement- under : which the '- .company' was to. pay Barton the .£l5O. The first.advancb.to Barton was a sum n ;of ,£25 for law costs, and to that payment was. attached the proviso -that if Barton was sucoessfhlnnd got costs, that was'.to bo a fiTst cbargo on the amount for costs received, as tho company; was. disinclined- to j see the costs - paid twice over.- At the conclusion of tho: dobato Sir Joseph: Ward had stated ' that Barton was entitled to the full.sum • of .£300./ under tho:,Workers' Cdinpensat; tiOn Act, and'while the Government was , prepared to look after Barton so far as -, it was'concerned, it would bo careful tc :t, see that tho .insurance company did not i, escape its liability; What the Prime sr Minister meant to. convey , (adds .'Mr, , - /Hammond) was fairly. obvious, but the ' wC3OO ;so-.mucli quoted was for total disablement, according to the Act menjo tioned, and seeing fhat'Barton was workn ing'and-.in" receipt of wages, his ol»im id could: hardly: come 'under that heading, 0. In; tho opinion of Mr. Hammond, if the il case was argued before tho-Arbitration l; Court,,or any other competent tribunal, id Barton -would not receive in insurance o- more than had,been paid him. It was 10 unnecessary; to point'out that his com- ]< pany had'no desiro.to-evade its .legitimate''liabilities.-'-.:.-