ARBITRATION COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1899, 6 November 1913, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

CLAIMS FOR INJURY; His Honour Mr. Justice Sim, along with two assessors (Messrs. Scott and M'Cullougli), resumed the sitting of tho Arbitration Court yesterday. Application was made to add C. Rowley as a party to the Federated Boot Trade _ Operatives' Award, in re male operatives. Mr. J. Hutehison, secretary of the Wellington branch of the union, appeared in support of the application, which was opposed by Mr. Grcnfcll. Decision .was reserved. LOSS OF AN EYE. 'An interesting and rather unusual compensation "case was next heard, in which Edward Botfield, labourer, Tailiapc, claimed compensation for the loss of an eye from Richard Acton Davies, solicitor, Tailiape, in whose employment 110 was when the accident occurred. Mr. P. J. O'Regan represented plaintiff, and Mr. Morison, K.C., with Mr. '11.I 1 . N. Holmden, appeared for defendant.

Mr. O'Regan, in opening, said that defendant had a section of land at Taihapc, and in May last ho engaged plaintiff to clear it of timber. The stumps lay 011 tho ground, and plaintiff was cntting them np into firewood, but tho primarv end in view was to clear the land. Whilst Bo employed plaintiff was struck in tho left eye % a splinter, and the sight was totally destroyed. Plaintiff claimed as compensation £13 for twelve weeks' total incapacity, and a lump sum representing 30 per cent, of full compensation for tho loss of tho eye, amounting to about £120. Sir. O'Regan argued that although tho Act Broyiiod for the payment of oomnowsr

tion. to any worker injured by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, yet there was one important limitation—that tho employment out of which the accident arose must 111 connection with the trodo or business of tlm omployer, unless the accident name-within tho categorv enumerated m tho first schedule of the Act. If it camo within tho srope of that schedule, then, whether tho accident occurred in the employer's trade or not, tho injured worker was entitled to compensation. Iho occupations sot out an the first schedule wero-.—Mining, quarrying, excavation. the cutting of standing timber, including tho cutting of scrub and clearing of land of stumps and logs; the erection of any building; the manufacture or aiso of any explosive; tho charge or nso of any machinery in motion and driven by steam or other mechanical power; tho driving of any vehicle drawn or propelled by horsepower or mechanical power; domestic service, in. which tho employment or engagement is for a period of not less than seven days; any occupation in which a worker incurred a risk of falling any distajico exceeding 12 feet, if tho injury or death of the worker resulted from such fall. Plaintiff corroborated this statement, but admitted that ho asked defendant for employment and had only worked days when the accident occurred, and only earned £2 10s.

Mr. Morison, 011 behalf of defendant, admitted the accident and injury, butpleaded that as it did not arise out of defendant's business as a solicitor, plaintiff was not liable to compensation. Ho also contended that the accident did not occur in course of any occupation included in tho first schedule. Tho clearing of tho land was the essence of the section, whereas plaintiff was only engaged in chopping wood. Defendant having given evidence, Mr. O'Regan, in reply, maintained that the case was covered by tho first schedule, as plaintiff was engaged in clearing tho land of stumps and logs. The land was owned by defendant and the removal of the stump's was part of the process of clearing the ground. Tim Court reserved decision.

SEAMAN'S SERIOUS ACCIDENT. Thomas John Owens, seaman, Gisborne, sued the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Company for £280 compensation for an accident caused whilst employed by tho defendant company as a trimmer on board the s.s. Matatua, 011 Feburay 18. -'lr. ].', J, O'Regan represented plaintiff and Mr. M. Myers appeared for tho defendant company. Mr. O'Regan, in his opening, said that whilo tho vessel was moored in the Gisborne roadstead, plaintiff met with an accident by which ho lost the fingers of each hand, tho thumbs only remaining. Owens was going to tlio stokehold to get some clothing which he had left there to dry, when"ho slipped on tho deck. Ho grasped the lead lino when falling and both hands were drawn into tho winch, half his hand being taken off. Tho point had been argued as to whether there was jurisdiction to try tho enso in New Zealand, tho defendant company maintaining that as the contract of service had been made in England plaintiff must bring his action there. The Court, however, decided in favour of plaintiff, but tho hearing was adjourned for the attendance of witnesses who wero absent on tho Matatua.

Mr, Myers contended that tho accident did not arise out of plaintiff's employment, as Captain Gillman had sworn that Owens had admitted to him in tho Gisborne Hospital that ho was fishing at the time. In any caso thero was 110 need for Owens to be near tli-o winch. A witness named I'igraui had also stated that plaintiff was fishing, that lio had gone for a piece of hoop-iron when the accident occurred, and that he was taking the wire off tho straw near tho sceno of tho accident.

Mr. O'Regan, in reply, said that tho boat'left- Now Zealand, and it was not until its return that tho witnesses wero asked to givo evidence, so that there wero bound to be discrepancies in tho accounts of what happened. Ho submitted that plaintiff had proved that the accident aroso out of his employment, but even if it was while he was fishing he was protected by tho statute as it was in tho interests of the employer that seamen should catch fish for their food. It was 37 weeks since the accident, and ho claimed £1 per week and a lump sum representing the cash value of the weekly payments of £1 for the remainder of the period of liability, altogether £280.

Judgment was reserved,

PUBLIC TRUSTEE V. DENTON. In this case, heard on Tuesdav, and in which tho Public Trustee, 011 'behalf of Mrs. Taylor and her two children, living in Scotland, claimod £292 10s. compensation against Albert E. Denton, for tho death of John Tnyior, farm labourer, late of Domett, Canterbury, who was drowned in January, 1911, whilst employed by defendant, Mr. Myers, on behalf of the latter, said that deceased and his wifo had separated by agreement and the former, with her knowledge, came to New Zealand. During the first year lie was hero he sent his wife £19 and during tho second £14. Mr. Myers admitted that some compensation was payable, but it was not . a caso of total dependency. The statement attributed to Mr. Myers at Tuesday's hearing was that of a legal argument which was cited in tho case and did not apply to the deceased in. this case. HIS MAJESTY'S THEATRE. The Court was asked to determine tho amount of wages to be paid by a on pouter who worked on His Majesty's Theatre building 011 Christmas Day in a caso brought by tho Wellington Carpenters' Union v. Fuller. Tho man was paid doublo ordinary time, and the union asked that he should be paid double ordinary double time. Mr. Young, who represented defendant, said both parties would leave tho matter entirely to tho Court without addressing them. Judgment was resorved.