ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1392, 19 March 1912, Page 2

ARBITRATION COURT.

COMPENSATION CASES, AX OLD MAX'S DEATH. A sitting of 1 ho Court of Arbitration was commenced in Wellington yesterday morning before Mr. Justice Sim. Sitting with him were Mr. H. Scott (employers' representative) and Mr. .1. A. M'Cullough (employees' representative). Preliminary business was concerned with the arranging of fixtures, alter which the Court proi'ivdcd to hear compensation cases. 'J he first of these arose out of a fatal accident thai occurred on Lanibton Quay in July last. Tlio parties to tho action were Fanny Hunt and Dora Sybil Hunt, spinsters, plaintiffs, and Heatrice Amy Pinnock, proprietress of the Arcadia hotel and taxicab owner, defendant. Mr. K. li. Kirfccaldio appeared lor the plaintiffs, and Mr. G. Samuel for the defendant. On July 10, 1911, Frederick Hunt, an elderly man, was knocked down by a motor-car on Lambton Quay, opposite tho National Hotel and sustained fatal injuries. Hunt was in tile employ of Mrs. I'innock and his average earnings were 255. a week and keep. The question for the Court was'whether the'accident occurred whiie Hunt was engaged in tho performance of his duties, and if so what compensation his daughters, Fanny Hunt, and Dora Sybil Hunt were entitled to. . Mr. Kirkcaldie, in referring to the accident, stated that it occurred shortly before G o'clock in the evening, on the western side of the Lanibton Quay tramway line, just opposite the Hotel Arcaoia. It was not known what took him into the middle of the road, but he may have been carrying out his duty to time tho return of taxi-cabs, or he may have gone a message. He never recovered consciousness after being struck. Counsel submitted that deceased was acting in the course of his duties at the time of the accident. Plaintiffs were entirely dependent on deceased for support. In the statement of defence, Mrs. Pinnock admitted that the accident had occurred as alleged, but denied that Hunt was performing tho duties of his employment at the time of the accident. Mr. Samuel said that Hunt was first employed by the defendant on May 26. His duties had proved too hard for him and about June 2t it was arranged that he should divide his time between tho Hotel Arcadia and the garage next door. Although his work included timing the return of the oars to the taxi-cab stand, thoro was no necessity for him to go beyond the pavement. Hunt, moreover, was deaf, and had b.id legs and feet. He had been frequently warned by defendant's husband against crossing tho road to go to hotels. Evidence was given by Geo. Pinnock, husband of the defendant, who stated that deceased had suffered from burns, which left him infirm in the legs, and was addicted to drink. While employed at the Arcadia, deceased was frequently muddled with drink, and on the day of the accident, he had had some drink, but was not drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kirkcaldie, witness denied that deceased's body had been examined for marks of burns. The examination had been for marks of the accident He did not know why there had been no suggestion of deceased's drinking; habits at the inquest. When at the Arcadia Hunt may have occasionally carried light higpißo'up the steps, but ho had never acted as day porter and night porter at the same time. Witness denied that he had ever sent Hunt on messages to the Post Office, or across the road to the W.F.C.A. or to the National Hotel. Evidence for the defence was also given by the plaintiff (Beatrice Amy Pinnockj and by Mcllio Elizabeth Knowlcs and others. His Honour, in giving judgment, said that Hunt was not killed whore his employment was actually situated, and there was no evidence to show that at the time of his death he was engaged in any work in connection with his employment. Plaintiffs had failed ,\to; ;prove that the accident arose out of the employment, and judgment would therefore be' given for the defendant. Mr. Samuel did not ask for costs. LOSS OF A FINGER. A CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE. In a compensation case that occupied the attention of the Court during the afternoon, relief was sought in respect of incapacity for employment through the loss of a finger, said to have been poisoned by a fishbone. The parties to the action were Oscar Sutherland, labour';.", of Wellington, plaintiff, and Nicholas Fernnndos, fishmonger, of Wellington, dciendixnt. Mr. V. W. Jackson appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. W. Blair for thi! defendant.

From the statement of claim it appeared that Sutherland was employed by Fernnndos to drive a delivery cart in Wellington, at a weekly wage of Ji'2 Ills. On August 5, 1911, while engaged in discharging a load of decayed fish and fishbones at the destructor, a fish bone accidentally pierued a little finger of his left hand. By reason of this injury, blood poisoning set in, and on October 14, 1911, tho finscr had to be amputated. Sutherland was incapacitated from following his usual occupation from August 5, 1911, until November 18, 1911, and for forty-two days he was an inmate of the Wellington Hospital, undergoing medical and surgical treatment. He therefore claimed:

(a) A weekly allowance of .£1 Cs. Gd. from August 5, 1911. to November 18, 1911; or, the sum of .El 9 17s. Gd.

(l>) A weekly allowance of 3.?. 2d.. or 12 per cent, of £\ Gs (id. for a period nf COS week's, computed from November 18, 1911, a lump sum to be awarded in lieu of such wfpldy payments as shall be payable in future. (c) And such further or other relief as tho Court shall think fit. Tn.his statement of defence, Fernnndos admitted tlint Sutherland wa? in ltis employ on and prior to August 5, 1011, l>lit declared that he was ilis:nis?e-'I nt or about 11 a.m. ou that dale. Further. Fernandos denied that Si'thcvla'ul had suffered any injury, while in lii« rap'.nv, or that. Putherlnnrl was entitled to the compensation claimed, or to any compensation. After Virine; lengthy evidence, lus Honour snid f '<at tho cimis of proof was on the plaintiff, but ho had failed to 'Us. charge it. There wns a serious conflict of evide-ice ns to plaintiff's condition on A.u!»u e t 5, as to whether he netnnllv trol; a load *■-> tV tleslriiMor "ii tint date, !>-"1 as lo the d.-ite «f Ws fii-.'t visM. to tho doctor, which visit was ui'rl to have been wiWn p week if the accident for nVmt Auirust 9 or 10V but. which the }\ni\ enter"-1 "' his I'oolc. as Auqv.st. IS. In view ef W* of <«-i f lm?p. .iiu , "-- nipnt must b" for the with cos*'; .(■■."> fi*. n'ui wit""s'e".' cwn'es. Tli? , Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day. ■ TO-DAY'S BUSINESS. The followi-is: f^ s w r " , ' tlo,V!1 r " r hewinjj fo-dny:-ComppiiMlion claim?, Arson v. Bennett. a;v! M'ArU,,,r v. Vj'<o". rase on nnnenl. C.ren v. Hie W.F C\. Case for nnSu'pn of the Court, j Merchants' Assistants' Dispute.