ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1248, 3 October 1911, Page 3

ARBITRATION.

INTERESTING JUDGMENT. "JUST PRIOR A DECISION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS CAME TO HAND." Mr. Justice Sim has delivered tho dociiion of the Arbitration Court in the casj in which Flora Sherwood, widow, of Lhincdin, proceeded aga-iust I'lio New Zealand Sliipping Company to recover coiuin resjipct oi the tleal'ii of her uusbaiui, Geo. Tliomas Sherwood, who was killed by an accnic.it while in the employ of the company. At the hearing Mr. I'. J. O'Kegau appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. YV. 11. l>. Dell for the defendants. Plaintiff was married to deceased nl' Iliionrille, Tasmania, in March, 1!IO2. The two children of die lusirriagc are both living with their mother in Dunedin. It. was alleged that, at Iho time of Sherwood's death, plaintiff and her children were total dependants of tho deceased, who was a wharf labourer in tho employment of tho New Zealand Shipping Company, receiving £2 18s. ikl. per week, exclusive of overtime. :ihe, therefore, claimed the sum of Xl'iS 55., being the ainouut that would have been earned by the deceased in fijrec years, at a ueckiy wage of A' 2 ISs. !)d. It appeared that in 1800 husband and wits entered inlo a deed of separation, Sherwood agreeing to pay 15s. per week towards the wife's maintenance. After niaking these paymonU lor six weeks, he disappeared, and his wiie had not lieajd from him since, nor did she know of his whereabouts until she heard of his death. She was now earning 255. per week by washing and charing, and she admitted in cross-examination that she could not lave lived on the las. a week which her husband was supposed to have paid her. In July the case came before the Court, the claim being as partial dependants, but his Honour hold Hint tho action could not succeed in this way. There was, however, a presumption 'that plaintiff and her children were total dependants, and a.s the point had not been argued the caso was adjourned until September. Just prior to the hearing a decision of Hip House of Lords came to hand, ajid held that compensation could not be claimed for benefits Hint had never been received. His Honour accordingly gave judgment for defendant and reinarked Hint tliPi-o was no presumption of law that the plaintiff was dependant on her husband's earnings and it was clear from tho evidence that she was not, in fact, dependant on those earnings at the date when her husband was killed. SUM OF £325 AWARDED. Judgment ira? also delivered in the case in which th'e parties were tho Pul)lie Trii=fcf (as administrator of the estate of Peter Tiernan or Patrick Turnan, deooniPil), plaintiff, and Joseph Aujjnsfe Perauo, master mariner, of Picion, defendant. At the hearing Mr. J. \V. Macdona'.d appeared for the Public. Trustee and Mr. A. W. BUiir for Perano. It appeared (hat deceased (Tiernan) had been a seaman on tire steamer Wairau, in the employ of the defendant (Pcrano), and that, on jlecemliPi , 13, 1908, he had been adjudged tho putative father of Walter Francis Tiernan. Oα December 20, 1010, Peter Tiernan had been drowned by the capsizing of a (1 a 1 -bottomed boat, which he had used in order to recover a fender vhirh had fallen overboard. Since bif death tho Public Trustee had supported tho child (Walter Francis Ticrnan; in a receiving home, and he now proceeded against defendant to recover the sum of ,£325 —compensation moneys payable in rospect of the death of deceased, and Eneh further or other relief as the Court might c-O'isiiier tho plaintiff entitled to. Mr. Macdonald, after calling evidence as to the facts, nrjniod that the child was a complete dependent, and quoted authorities in support of tho contention thnfhe was entitled to compensation as such. Defendant admitted that deceased had died as (he result of an accident while in his (defendant's) employ, but denied that the child. Walter Francis Tiermui, had been totally dependent on Hie deceased. Mr. Blair argued that the child's mother was partially responsible for its support, and that tho child was entitled to compensation as payable to a partial dependant only. His client would consent to an order for .£24 15s. —three times the amount paid by tho father during the last year that he contributed to the child's support. In tho opinion of the Court, the boy was totally dependent on the earnings of the deceased.' The question of oinvars of payment could not affect the point to bo determined. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for Jf32.'i. to be invested by him/ a.iid capital and income applied js thought proper. Plaintiff was alto awarded £o as, costs-