LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1699, 15 March 1913, Page 22

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before His Honour Mr. Justico Chapman.) ' A LICENSEE'S APPEAL. YOUTHS AND. LIQUOR. In tko Supreme Court yesterday morning Mr. Justico Chapman heard an appeal from the decision of Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., in a licensing case which was heard in the Lower Court last year at Dannevirke. The appellant was Henry Baker, licensee of the Club Hotel, Dannevirke, and the respondent was John Potter. Air. T. H. G. Lloyd, of Dannevirke, appeared for the appellant (Baker), while Mr. P. S. li. pfceassey, of the Crown Law Office, appeared for the respondent. In the Lower Court, Baker was convicted of allowing a youth, named Charles Kussell, apparently under the age of 21, to be supplied .with liquor, on July 3, 1912, for consumption on the premises. The magistrate's finding on the' evidence .was that Mrs. Baker, wife of tho licensee, supplied the liquor, which was consumed in a private parlour in the .hotel. When tho licensee saw lhissell and two other youths, who were also there, ho at once ordered thorn oft' the premises. The magistrate imposed a line of £o, and costs 135.Prom this decision Baker appealed, on the ground that it was erroneous in law. After hearing legal argument, his Honour reserved decision. BANKRUPTCY COURT. In the Supreme Court in bankruptcy yesterday, Mr., Justice Chapman granted discharge to AValter Henry Hewson, grocer, of Petone. Mr. A. It. Atkinson appeared in support of tho application, which was not opposed. ■ " A COMPENSATION CLAIM. BUSHFALLER'S ACCIDENT. A compensation case was heard by the Court of Arbitration yesterday alternoon. The plaintiff in this was William Henry Gibbons, bushfeller, of Masterton, and the delendant. was Bertram Kutlierfurd Bunny, sheep-farmer, of Longbush. Mr. H> C. L. Robinson, oi Masterton, appeared for Gibbons, while Mr. M. Myers appeared for Bunny. About June 24, 1912, Gibbons, while engaged bushfelling, sustained a cut on the linger of his right hand, blood-poisoning supervened, and, by reason thereof, Gibbons was unable to work from July 3, 1912, until October 2, 1912, a period of thirteen weeks. He alleged that ho was in the employ of Bunny at the time of the accident, and said that if it should appear that, under the terms of his arrangement with. Bunny, he was not a worker within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act, 19U8, then it had been agreed that for the purposes of the Act he should be treated as a worker. He said that Bunny was now -estopped from denying that he (Gibbons) was a worker. He claimed from Bunny,. as compensation in respect of the accident, the sum of £26, and medical expenses .£l.

After evidence had been called on both sides, tho Court held that ,it was clear from the evidence that Gibbons was a contractor, and that, unless he could prove some agreement, he could not ho treated as a worker. He had not proved that it was the intention of defendant to treat him as a worker, and the claim must therefore fail. Costs were allowed the defendant.