ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1690, 5 March 1913, Page 5

ARBITRATION.

LOCAL SITTING OF COURT. i COMPENSATION. CLAIM ON CORPOEATION. The sittings*bf the Court of Arbitration were continued yesterday, Mr.. .Justice "Sim presided, and sitting with him wero Mr. W. Scott (qmployers' representative) nnd Mr. J. A'. JM'Cullough (employees' -representative). 'Ilia Court was occupied during the morning with the hearing of compensation eases. No evidenco was called in the first case, the only difference between tho parties being a legal question as to how compensation should bo commuted. • The' plaintiff was Charles Alexandor Russell, labourer, of Wellington, and the defendant was • tho Wellington City - Corporation. . ■ Mr. P. J. O'Kcgan appeared for Russell, while the City Solicitor (Mr. J. O'Shea). appeared for the corporation. i It was set out in the statement of claim that on August 23, 1012, Russell sustained an injury by an'accident arising out of his employment in that lie was thrown from a. cart. Ju consequence of this his right leg was amputated below the knee. Ho was employed as labourer at a wage of 10s. per day, and as compensation he was paid ,£1 Sis. 3d. per week, but tho Corporation denied liability to pay the amount claimed by Russell for tho loss of his right leg.. Russell therefore clainied a weekly payment of 18s. commuted for the remainder of tho period of liability as provided by Section 5 of tho Workers' Compensation Act, 1908. In the statement of defence, the City Corporation admitted that it had paid to Russell the sum of .£1 9s. 3d."per week and admitted also that <£L 10s. per week should have been paid. The Corporation was willing to pay this or such sum as the Court should order until tho end of February, 1913. Further, the Corporation I was willing to pay, in addition to what had already been paid, the sum of .£2OO ss. 3d. in full settlement of all liability after' February 28, 19)3, if the Court was of .opinion that the compensation should be commuted." It was contended thrj: the compensation should be fixed according to the "principles, laid down in the case of Rough v. Prouse, Lumber Ltd: ' Mr. O'Kegon contended that plaintiff was entitled to full compensation ("30s. per week) for 27 weeks expiring on February'2B. Thereafter he was entitled to a. weekly payment of 18s., being 00 per cent, of* full compensation, which should be commuted iit 5 per cent., making a lump sum of approximately ,£225, in addition to what had already been paid. Mr. O'Shea said that, on the principles laid down by tho Supremo Court in Rough v. Prouse Lumber, tho allowance of 60 per cent, should be deducted from the compensation already paid during the 27 weeks that total incapacity had continued. This implied that about £2i shoVld be deducted from tho lump sum payable. His' Honour did not agree with Mr. O'Shea's reading of the'effect of the judgment in Rough ,v. Prouse Lumber, and suggested that the parties, should be able to agree.upon the amount of compensation —approximately .£225. -Medical expenses, <61, . and costs, £3' 35.,. were allowed plaintiff. WHAT IS THE LAW? HOUSEKEEPER .OR DEPENDENT? What is the position of a sister, who has been keeping house, for her brothers, in v tho miittpr of compensation ? This was the question involved in .another compensation caso before .tho Court. The plaintiff was Mary- ■ Ellen Hocquard, married woman, of Wellington, and the defendants were Tlios. Ballinger and, Co., Ltd., Wellington/ 1 • Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for - Mrs. Hocquard, while Mr. T. Young appeared ' for the defendants, (Thomas 'Ballinger and Co.). ' ' . ■ • • From the facts set out it' appeareOjUiat Mrs. Hocquard was a sister of Arthur Pudney, who was killed by an accident occurring, on October 31, 1912, arisiug.out of the- course of 'his-- employment with Ballinger and Co, Mrs. Hocquard,- who had been separated . ,fr"m her husband for several years, -had been keening house for, four of her .brothers,. Three of tlreM—Arthur, Albert, .and Joseph—had been ; regularly paying . per week, and the other brother, Thomas, had been an occasional resident, in Wellington, and had contributed accordingly. The family lived in a house in Bluelier Avenue, owned by eight members of the family, and valued at ,£(>7s (Government valuation). Since the accident, Mrs. Hocquard's brothers, Albert and Joseph, had' married, and the remaining brother allowed her 255. par week. She claimcd tho suin of £156 as reasonable compensation. The defence .was a general denial of any _ liability, .the contention being that plaintiff- was either a housekeeper or a landlady. ' After hearing witnesses for the plaintiff, •Mr; Young intimated that he did not'propose to call evidenceThe le<ral " nhase of the case was then argued, the Court reserving decision. ' NEURASTHENIA. • /_ UNION; COMPANY'S EMPLOYEE. Medical evidence was called by both sides in a compensation claim heard in the afternoon. • The plaintiff'was William Henry Chamberlain, labourer, of Wellington, and tho defendants were the Union Steam Ship Company, Ltd., ship-owners, with head office at Dunedin. Mr. I>. J. O'Refjan appeared for Chamberlain, while Mr. P. Levi appeared' for the Union Company. It appeared that while in the Union Company's employ on August 1. 1912, Chamberlain was struck by a sling and sustained injuries which incapacitated him. He was earning «S3 2s. 2d. per week and the company had paid him .£1 lis. id. per week up till February 11, 1913. He alleged that he was at the present time suffering from neurasthenia and claimed a lump sum as compensation in respect of the injuries lie had sustained. The Union Company admitted the accident, but denied that Chambfrlain was suffering .from neurasthenia and contended that his period of incapacity had ceased on or befol-e February 11, 1913. the date to 'which compensation was paid. After hearing the medical evidence the Court awarded compensation at . tho rate ■ of halfwages for seven months (.£>l(s 10s.) and lGs. per week for six months, making a total of i£67 Gs., for which amount judgment was given, together with costs £1 7s. and witnesses' expenses.

" APPEAL. APPRENTICE'S PAT. An appeal from the magistrate's decision in the case of the Inspector of Awards v. Alcock and Co. was also heard by the Court, the question being whether n, breach of award had been committed in regard to'wages paid to an apprentice: The case was first brought in December last.

In tho Lower Court Mr. D. Carmodi (Inspector of Awards) said that the apprentice was now in his third year during which the rate -of pay was 13s. per week. Before the commencement of his third year the boy had lost six weeks' work through absence. Tho employers hod told the boy that he _ would have to complete the six weeks before getting his rise from 9s. to 135., and this had been carried out. Mr. Carmody contended that tho boy had been paid. 4s. ner w-eek less during those six weeks than the award stipulated. Mr. J, C. Peacock, for the defendant, argued that the inspector was proceeding against defendant in the terms of an award Which had been superseded, and that under the new award tho defendants' action was permissible. The magistrate held that a breach had been committed, and imposed a fine of .El. From this decision, Alcock and Co. appealed on the ground that it was erroneous in law. -■After hearing argument yesterdav the Court reserved decision.