ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2419, 26 March 1915, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

COMPENSATION CASE. j The judgment of the Arbitration Court has been filed with the Clerk of Awards (Mr. G. S. Clark) in the case in which John William Presling, labourer, of Foxton, sought to recover compensation from the Poplar Flaxmilling Company in respect of an accident. Vresling was employed as a flax-washer at tho defendant company's mill on November 24, 1913, on which date he came into contact with the machinery in the mill, thereby sustaining a fractured skull and other injuries, by reason of which he was an inmate of tho Palmerston North Hospital until May 15,'1914. Presling alleged that he was partially and permanently disabled by reason of the injuries and the medical evidence, taken at Palmerston North in August last, showed that portion of the frontal bone of the skull had been removed. Presling claimed compensation at the rate of 30s. per week for tho time he was totally disabled, a lump sum equivalent to the cash value of the weekly payments properly due in accordance ivith the Workers' Compensation Act. and a suspensory award for a nominal weekly sum (should the Court see fit to award less than the maximum amount of compensation) as well as the coats; of the action. The defendant company admitted the accident, but denied pennanent total disablement. Further, it pleaded no liability, on the ground that Presling had not commenced his action within six mouths after the accident, as required by Section 24 of the Act. The company also said that the accident was due to the serious and wilful misconduct of Presling in that he had brought to tho mill and consumed during the course of his employment a quantity of alcoholic liquor. At the hearing, Mr. P. J. O'Regan appeared for Presling, while Mr. A, A. y. Menteath appeared for the defendant company. The Court held that the plaintiff (Presling) had reasonable cause for failing to commence his action within the six months, and, therefore, that such delay was no bar to such action. As to the other defence, the Court was of opinion that the defendant company entirely failed to discharge the onus cast upon it of proving affirmatively the allegation made that the plaintiff (Presling) was drunk at the time of the accident. The question remained as to the amount of compensation to which the plaintiff (Presling) was entitled. In this connection the Court considered there was justification for concluding that Presling had fully recovered his capacity for work at the expiration of about four months after his discharge from the hospital. On that footing he was entitled to forty weeks at 30s. a. week (a total sum of £G0), and judgment was given for this amount, together with £1 medical expenses, ton guineas costs, witnesses' expenses and disbursements. "We think also," concluded tho judgment, "that tho p'amtiff (Presling) is entitled to a suspwiBory award in regard to future possible developments of liis injuries. _ We, therefore, award him compensation at the rate of one penny per week, computed from this date, to continue until such payments are ended or inoroassd, in accordance with the provisions of the Aofc."