LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1544, 13 September 1912, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

ARBITRATION. (Before his Honour Mr. Justice Sim.) .. THE CLIENT WHO VANISHEDHIS HONOUR SMILES. OTHER .CLAIMS ON EMPLOYERS, The Court of Arbitration commencec ;its Wellington sittings yesterday. Mr 'Justice Sim presidsd and sittiug with him were:' Messrs. Wm. Scott, employers' re. prese-ntativo, and J. A. M'Cullough, employees' representative.' Some legal sparring marked the opening of the compensation action in which . John Dalzell, of Tokoinaru, was the plaintiff, and Craw Bros., iiaxniillers, of Toko- ■ ' rriaiu, were the. defendants. . Mr! A. H, Hindmarsh appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. C. H. Treadwolt appeared for the defendants. It 'was set out in the statement oi claim that John Dalzell had been employed by : Craw Bros, in November, 1911, his work requiring him to press tow , nnd perform other like duties. On November 19 he met .irith an accident by which 'his hand had been rendered Meless. His wages had averaged £2 Bs. per week and Iβ now claimed compensation, equivalent to JBI 4s. per week. ' In defence Craw Bros, denied that Dalzcll -was in their employ'at .the time of the accident. They asserted that he had ■beenemployed by one William "Suckling, lessee of the mill. . . .;■ . Mr. Hindiuarsh, before calling evidence, asked that'thV, "amended statement of defence be struck out. In tho original defence filed there was no suggestion that Craw Bros, were not the employers of the plaintiffs It had been practically arranged, that the only points in dispute were the medical testimony and the question as to whether an old nga pensioner 'was entitled to compensation. Now the tlefence was a denial of liability. .His Honour thereuDon remarked that there were two courts open to Mr. Hindmarsh.; If his case were prejudiced by the late filing of . the . amended defence he could apply for an adjournment. If not he could elect to go on. • Mr. Hindmarsh elected'to go on with the case, and evidence was then called. Mr. Tread well subsequently pointed oiit that his clients were not,really disputing the accident.,. The main point at issue was the amount of compensation. The .Court reserved decision. , r "MY CLIENT GONE." "MOST EXTRAORDINARY AFFAIR," '•'lly client has mysteriously disappear- .- fd.Tour Honour," said Mr. P. J. O'Regan in.the Oourt of .Arbitration yesterday. Hβ was.appearing for the-.plaintiff in the compensation action, Higgins v. Goldfinch. ■ According to the statement of claim, the, plaintiff, while employed at a sawmill at Ohnkune on May 17, 1913, met with an accident to his-left hand. On account of the alleged injury to-his hand he .claimed a lump sum representing'. £1 13s, per week from the time of the in-' jury to the date of the action.. .- . . j ;Mr. O'Regan declared that his client's . disappearance was a "most extraordinary affair." He (counsel) had been unable to trace him, and could not givo any assurance; that he, could do so. i ■ - ■ His Honour (smiling): Do yon hope h6 will return? ■ ; "•; <; ;■..■■'•..,';..-.. Mr. very wavo.doubt? Honour...-..... . . • " r 'His Honour suggested ■ that tho case should be'stTiick.ojit...... -.;■.;■..- . .Mr. C. H. Treadvreii, who appeared for' tho defendant,.pointed out that: "the dofonce had been put to enormous expense. He thought that a mere striking out was insufficient. Judgment ought to be for defendant. His , Honour said that striking out the case-was equivalent to that.- "I don't', suppose," added his Honour, "that a judgment for costs would bo of much use to you." . Mr. Treadwell: Not unless the labour organisations behind this man come to his assistance, your Honour. ■ A general innile followed ■Mγ. Treadw.ells remark. ;■ . • •; .Tho case was eventually struck out, mo defendant being awarded costs amonnt■lcg- to ,£lO 10s., and witnesses' expenses to be fiuwd ly tie Clerk of Awards. ' DRAPER'S MAN. CLAIMS .ON A CRUSHED HAND. Compensation -was awarded. Herbert George Harvoy in respoct of incapacity .through blood-poisoning.allegedly due to an accident while Harvey was in the employ I o! "Hermann Heimann, draper, of Wei--linyton. .■•■■■ Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh appeared for Harvey, while Mr. B. B. Williams appeared for Heimann. • On behalf of the plaintiff (Harvey) it ' was-alleged that while in the employ of Heimann on May 15, he hed his nond crushed between a door ant] a box which he was carrying. Blood-poisoning set in, and on that account Harvey had been! unable to continue his work. Ho therefore claimed half wases (£1 ss. per week) from, the date of • fhe accident. ■ Defendant (Heimann) denied liability, «nd said that the blood-poisoning was not the result of the accident, which was of -a tritiinjr nature only. Medical testimony -was called on both fides, and the Court, after hearing this, considered that Harvey was entitled to eome. compensation. -Judgment would bo for with 'costs £i is., and disbursements and witnesses ei-penses to be fixed/ ' by the Cleric of Awards. •■ ; HUSBAND'S DEATH, ' DID HIS WORK BRING IT ON? ■'■ Whether or tot 'an employee's illness '"»nd subsequent death had- resulted from I ;;m accident in the course of -his employment was the question at issue in a compensation case heard yesterday afternoon. Tho parties to tho action wero Florence Haidy, widow, of Wellington, : :plaintiff, and Tonks and Andrews, con- ' tractors, of Wellington. Mr. A. H.'Hindmarsh appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. T. Neave for the do- j t'endants. . • ■ . i It appeared that Florence Hardy is the j .■administratrix of tbo estate of ■ the lato John Hardy, formerly of Tasman Street, Wellington. Deceased was employed as a driver and stableman by Tonks and Andrews. .It was alleged that, on or about July i, 1911, while in their eraploy, he injured his heart while lifting material at stables in Kilbirnio. On June, i last the death had resulted from thi3 injury and Florence Hardy and two ehildren were left as total dependents. The action was brought on their behalf. The avsrogo weekly earnings of the deceased had been £2 15s. Florence Hardy now' claimed .£12!) under the Workers' Compensation Act and the sura of ,£2O fdr funeral and medical expenses incurred. :■•..... By way of defence, Tonks and Andrews admitted tbsttthe late John Hardy had Seen in their employ earning the wages but they denied the allegations as- to the accident of July i, 1811. They farther said that the illness on account of which the deceassd (Jorn Hardy) ceased Trork on July ~i, 1911, and his death on or about June i, 1312, vei* the result of a disease from which he (John Hardy) had siiffetoJ for «veral y-cars. It was In jio>ls«. the r-wiilt of aJiy accident ans. ing ouj; of and in tho course of his em. pigment. . Medloal testimony ■was gif«n oo Mhali »f both parte to the action. The Court-did not require to hear all thi) medical evidence that was foTthcemte? for the defence, antf Mr. Neave did Sal trouble to the Court. • &fter hearing Mr, Hindmwsh's address, Court wae not satisfied that the 511b«3S of deceased conjd be connected with any accident occurring in the course of his employment.. Judgment was therefore given for the defendants.- No ■costs .wore aeked for,