UNUSUAL ACTION

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1520, 16 August 1912, Page 2

UNUSUAL ACTION

COMPENSATION MONEYS. A rather .unusual'point was involved in an action heard in tho Supreme Court yesterday beforo Mr. Justice Chapman nnd brought for tho purpose of obtaining a declaration under the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Act, 1908, as to how to deal with compensation, moneys received under tliat Act. The plaintiff in the action was the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate of William Henry Brewer, wharf labourer, late of Onawa, Christchurch. Tho defendants were Violet Maud Brewer, widow, of Christchurch, and William Lewis Brewer and Clara- Grace Brewer, infant children of the deceased, W. H. Brewer. ■

Mr. J. W. Macdonald appeared for the Public Trustee, while Mr. 1). M. Pindlay appeared for the guardian ad litem of tho infant children. Mrs. Brewer submitted to judgment.

William Henry Brewer, wharf labourer, Opawa, died on June lli, mil, as the iesult of an accident, sustained on the Lyttelton wharf, 'i'lio deceased died intestate, leaving only life insurance moneys, and the Public Trustee took out administration to his estate. The deceased left a widow (Violet .Aland Brewer) and two children (William Lewis Brewer, bom November 19, 190", and Clara Grace Brewer, born July (i. 1910). His employer offered the Pifblic Trustee .i'soo compensation under tho Workers' Compensation Act, 1908, that being the maximum amount recoverable, but the Public Trustee was advised to refuse tho offer, and proceed under the Deaths by Accident Compensation Act, 1003 (Lord Campbell's Act). Eventually tho claim was compromised without court action for .£7OO.

After outlining the facts, Mr. Macdonald said that the Dsaths by Accident Compensation Act, JOOB, provided that all moneys recovered by an administrator had to be apportioned by o jury duly empanelled, but Mr. Justice Cooper had held in Wilson v. Gear Meat Company that after an action had been started the Judge had inherent jurisdiction to perform the functions of.the jury. ,No New Zealand case had, however)! dealt with a case such as this, where no action had been taken, but counsel submitted English authorities in point, showing that the Judge could apportion. He then submitted evidence of the circumstances and position of tho widow and children.

Mr. Pindlay raised no opposition to tho argument put forward. His Honour said that bo would take time lo consider the matter.

UNCOMPLETED LAND DEAL. A motion for judgment in a claim for damages was decided by Mr. Justice Chapman late yesterday afternoon. Tho parties to the action were Louis Daroux, settler, plaintiff,'and. George Hamill, de-. femiaut. Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for the plaintiff in support of the motion' for judgment. The defendant was not represented. "• The motion camo on tho previous afternoon, and was then adjourned until sonio authorities could be cited. Defendant, who had been proceeded against by substituted service, is not now in tho Dominion. It appeared from evidence that defendant had agreed to purchase from plaintiff a block of land, 2019 acres, at Shannon, partly in the Horowhenua county and partly in the W T arirapa. The price of purchase was £W3, of which sum he had paid ,6200 down and promised to pay the balance on November 8 last. Defendant failed to pay the balance, and hiul_bccn in default ever since. In terms tff tho agreement, plaintiff bad recovered possession, but by reason of the defendant's failure to complete the deal, plaintiff had been kept out of .the possession for over' a , year, and had thereby suffered damages in respect of which he now claimed the sum of „CSOO.

His I honour gave judgment for Daroux for .£3O ljcyond the .€2OO already paid, and nuido a declaration that Daroux was entitled to I retain, the JC2OO. Costs were also allowed against the defendant.

DIVORCEPETITION. •„In the Supreme Court yesterday morning, Wore -Mr. Justics Chapman, Winifred Annie Eliiston petitioned for dissolution of her marriage with. Charles Arthur Eliiston on the ground of misconduct. Mr. E. K. Kirkcnldie appeared for the petitioner, while jMr. M. M. F. Luckia watched the proceedings on behalf of the respondent, who, however, had not filed any defence.

ilvidence was to the effect that tha parties woro married in September, 11105, and lived together at I'otonc, Lower Hutt, and Hlenhoim until July, 1010. There wero two children of the marriage. In July, 1910, tho petitioner came to Wellington, it being arranged that tho respondent should follow. Jlc did not do so, and had not sinco lived with tho petitioner. Two witnesses, testified to admissions of misconduct made by tho respondent on s'eparato occasions.

His Honour granted a decree nisi, to.be made absolute after three months, with 'costs on the lowest scale against tho respondent. Petitioner was granted interim custody of tho children.

FRIENDLY'SOCIETY BENEFITS. CAN CREDITORS CLAIM THEM? Whether moneys accruing to a deceased person's estate from friendly society benefits are liable for payment 'of tho debts of deceased? This was a question submitted to Mr. Justice Sim for answer at tho Supreme Court yesterday morning. The parties to the action were. Robert Kilpatricky grocer, and Richard Tingey, oil and colour merchant, both of Wellington (executors of the will of the Into William Johnson, builder), plaintiffs, and Louisa. Twymau Johnson, widow, .of Wellington, defendant.

Mr. A. Gray appeared for tho plaintiffs, while Mr. W. F. Ward appeared for tho defendant.

Deceased's widow (tho defendant in tho notion) is solo beneficiary tinder tho will. By reason of deceased's membership of Excelsior Lodge, 11, U.A.0.P., tho sum of ,£l2O became payable to plaintiffs and defendant as executors of the will. Claims totalling- .CMS 11s. lid. have been made by eleven creditors against tho estate, and the sum of, .£l2O, above-mentioned, was the only asset, if it could bo so.called. Hence the question submitted to the Court.

_ After hearing argument, his Honour adjourned the case for n fortnight, in order that evidence might ho given bv tlio creditors.