Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ARBITRATION COURT

COMPENSATION CASE.

p'/, Arbitration Court has delivered b*. Its decision m the compensation case in t which -the plaintiff was Duilo Picohi, I:- fish-ourer, of Wellington, the defender; ants being the Hawke's -Bay Fisheries' t Company, Ltd., fish merchants, of Wei's:' Mngton. . Mr.. P; J. O'Regan appeared 1- for Picchi, while Mr." T. Neave appeared r- ; for the company. |. The olaim set out that Picchi, while ' in the employ of the defendant company ' . °n .November 16, 1914, "was engaged in' c phaning 'and chopping fish,at 5.4 Cpur-. i: tenay; Place. During the course of this p employment a noxious germ or particle deleterious matter came into.contact .vith his 'left eye, and sot up therein a septic condition, as a result- of which ; Picchi was totally disabled for a period of ten weeks. In addition, Picchi sus- ;• tained a permanent, in jury, the sight of Mfc , e yo being totally and perman- . ently destroyed. His wages at the time of the occurrence had. been £3 10s. per week, and 'ln-Tespect of the injury'he c. claimed a .lump sum" of £230 10s. The defence was a oomplete denial ■of liability, _the_ defendant company saying that Picchi sustained no injury in the course of his employment. ; The Court, in its judgment, held that while working on the moniihg of November 16 some particle of matter was y projected into the plaintiff's eye, result- ■. lng in the' loss',of the eye. " The plaintiff was "therefore entitled to compen--53",'..0n, calculated in accordance with second schedule of the Act. -also t-o u l ' f wage's for the period of iis total incapacity luid the sum of £1 for medical expenses, and gave judgment for these amounts.!. The .Court added .that i it thought th& compensation was correct- . ly computed -in the plaintiff's statement of claim, but no doubt the parties could agree to the correct amount. ! If not, a further application oould he made to the Court to settle the amount. The plaintiff was also awarded £10 10s. costs, witnesses' expenses and disbursements.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150330.2.75.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2422, 30 March 1915, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
338

ARBITRATION COURT Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2422, 30 March 1915, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2422, 30 March 1915, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert