COURT OF ARBITRATION

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2640, 10 December 1915, Page 6

COURT OF ARBITRATION

I>— CLAIMS AGAINST UNION COMPANY.' The Court of Arbitration' resumed' its sitting ill Wellington yesterday. His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer presided, and sitting witli him as assessors were:, Messrs. E. I\ Duthie (employes' representative) and J. A. M'Cullough (employees' representative). Three claims for compensation wore dealt with during the day. In all three cases. Mr. P. J. O'Began appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. Levi for the defendant. ' , William James Smith, firoman, was plaintiff in the first case, and his claim was against the Union Steam Ship Company, in respect of an accident on tho s.s. Maitai on .January 31 last, when Smith fell down tho stokehold and fractured his skull. In August last, -the Court made an order against the Union Company for tho payment of linlf wages (J!l 3s. Id. per week) on the understanding that an inquiry he made into tho. previous history of Smith's health. Yesterday the Union Company asked that that order should he reviewed, and put forward an affidavit to prove that Smith had been subject to epileptic fits previous to tho accident. Smith, denied that ho iiad ever been subject to fits until after tho Occident. Tho motion to review was 'dismissed, 'the weekly order to stand. Costs, .£3 35., and witnesses' expenses and medical expenses wore awarded the plaintiff. Raymond Allen, driver, was plaintiff in ths second case, and the defendant was the Union Company. Allen had originally been employed as a waterside worker, and as tljo result of an accident on tho defendant company's steamer Kanna lie lost the use of his Tight eyo. <fli3 average weekly earnings had been £3 65.,' and he recently accepted -employment as a driver at, £2 10s. The company had jiai.d him half wages (,£1 135.) from the time of tho accident (April 10 last)- until August 8, but denied further liability. The question arose as to whether the company was further liable, seeing that Allen could take employment as a driver, and as to whether he was entitled to a suspensory award in view of the possibility of liis eyesight being further impaired. The Court reserved decision. Decision was also reserved in the case in which William Mallard, waterside wiorfeer, was plaintiff,' and the Union Company defendant. Mallard lost tho use of liis left eye through being struck by a "bull rope" while working on tho defendant company's steamer Komata on May 21, 1015. He was able to take employment, but claimed that his earning capacity had been roduced. The defendant company had paid liim half wages (.£1 135.) for eleven weeks, and lie now claimed further weekly payments and a lump sum in respcct of future incapacity.