LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1555, 26 September 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

COMPENSATION. (Before Arbitration Court.) s THE WAITER'S INJURED HAND. HOTEL CASE. J Rather a. novel legal point arose in connection with a compensation, case heard in the Court of Arbitration yesterday. Tho hearing was taken before Mr. .luslicc Sim and Mr. J. A. M'Cnllougli. The ease waa that in whieh Thomas Griffiths, waiter, of "Wellington, sought to recover compensation from Samuel Gilmer, hotelkeeper, of Wellington. Mr.. 1\ J. O'Kegan appeared for Griffiths, and Mr. A. A. Stuart Mcnteath for Gilmer. ■From tho statement of claim it ap. peared that Griffiths was employed an a barman at the Royal Oak Hotel, at a-wage of .£2 Ts. per week. On February 29, 1912, his right wrist had been injured through the bursting of a soda-water bottle, arid he had, consequently, been totally incapacitated for a month. During that time ho received payments under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1908. Then, being honestly of opinion that he had completely recovered, ho had signed a discharge releasing the defendant (Samuel Gilmer) from further liability. Plaintiff, however, now alleges that by reason of the accident tho littlo finger and ring finger of his right hand have since become contracted or atrophied, and he has been advised that they will grow worse. He therefore claimed, compensation properly due lot such injuries. The defence was a denial of liability; the defendant (Gilmer) declaring that, if it were proved that Griffiths were suffering from the injuries alleged, these could not be attributed to the. accident of February 2!). Defendant further stated that any weakness or debility from which Griffiths was at present suffering was not such as. to incapacitato him from pursuing his usual avocation, or reduce his earning power. In opening the easo for the nlaintiff, Mr. O'Regan raised a rather novel legal point. He pointed out that the accident had happened on 'February.29, and the new Act came into forco on March 1. He would argue that tb.o discharge given by Griffiths could not stand because the procedure provi'3ad by-F'ACtk-n in of the new Act bed not hcwi complied with. The avc-rcye izisuruv.ee aper,*; or-layman might conclude that the Act was not retrospective, but. counsel would argue that, in matters of procedure, the Act really was retrospective, aiul that in this case the necessary procedure had not been complied with. Medical evidence was tendered on both sides and after hearing counsel, tile Court intimated that it would take time to I consider its decision. : Mr. o'P»egan suggested that his Honour should decide the legal point raised, 3 and then, if necessary, adio.ini tho case I until it could-be .ascertained whether S plaintiff's injuries were likely to pro\;c j permanent.