COMPENSATION CASE.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 767, 16 March 1910, Page 4

COMPENSATION CASE.

AN INJURED FOREFINGER. Ruth Ellen Miller claimed .£62, under tho Workers' Compensation Act, on account of an injury to her right forefinger, sustained during the course of her employment at a private hotel in Courtenay Place. Mr. A. H." Hindmarsh appeared lor the plaintiff, and Mr. S. Kiikcaldie for the defendant, Peter Carnie. Plaintiff's father, David Miller, wa9 appointed guardian ad litem, she being 17 years of age. • 1 The plaintiff's story was that, when washing the kitchen floor,, one day last August, she hurt her finger on a pot. The injury was attended to by Dr. Mackin, but her employer told her that the -doctor was- not treating'.! it. properly, arid ho took tho bandage Off and.niade a cut with a 'pocket-knife. •' After, that it grew worse, and she. went to Dr. .Hislop, who took off the top of the finger. She could hot now either sew or write. Tho accident occurred last August. Her wages were 17s. Gd., with board and lodging. The coffee-pot was under a shelf, and she put her hand into it to shift it. The defendant said that plaintiff complained of an injury to hor finger, saying she thought she had hurt it with a needle. He advised her to see a doctor,and to r«6t from work for a while. He denied that ho took the bandage off her finger and cut it with a knife. Ho never tbuched . her finger.' Plaintiff arranged fof another person to do her work, and paid her IBs. out. of her own wages. He allowod plaintiff and the other woman to stay at'his house.'. ; . •Ellen Carnie, wife of defendant, said that when plaintiff first, came to work at the hotel, she appeared, to be very mucli run' down, and her mother had spoken t0... witness about - it,.. .and, said plaintiff was talcing medicine.; :Plamtiff' had told hor that: 6ho" did not know how she. hurt hor finger, hut thought she. had stuck a fork -in if. Witness's husband never operated on plaintiff's finger. In cross-examination, witness admitted that plaintiff, was, kitchenmaid for a fortnight. His Honour, in giving judgment, said the Court wa6 entitled to consider prob-. abilities, and the probability '.was that the injury lias caused as described by the, plaintiff, but' compensation . could only, be' awarded as for the period between October . 5 and .November 29,\ be'cause it was'.dear, , that on.. the. last--' named, date she was able to Teturn to work, and did work for five weeks at another restaurant, whioh 6he left y of he* own free will, and not because she was unable to do tho work. She was entitled to half-wages for the period named, and as her earnings were 275. 6d. she would be' awarded eight times 13s. 9d. Judgment .was for £5 10s., with costs three guineas, and disbursements and witnesses' expenses. ' Tho Court then "adjourned. The date of the next public sittings in. Wellington has not been fixed.