ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2874, 12 September 1916, Page 9

ARBITRATION COURT

:—» COMPENSATION OASES. Td'o claims for compensation wero heard yesterday morning by His Honour Mr. Justice Stringer, sitting in the Arbitration Court. Honry Stanley Ralph claimed from Munt, Cottrell'and Co., Ltd., in re-' spect of alleged permanent injury suffered by him in the course of his employment with them. Ralph, it was stated, slipped and fell when he was loading a lorry at the King's Wharf, and sustained hernia. An operation was performed, and the plaintiff returned to work, hut, he alleged, he suffered a recurrence of his rupture. Another operation was performed, but he was now permanently unfit for work. His wages had been £2 17s. per week, and the defendants bad paid him half wages for twelve weeks after his accident. Plaintiff claimed accrued payments up to the date of tho trial arid a lump sum in respect of his future inability to earn his living. The defence alleged that the second operation was for appendicitis, in which respect their case 'was proved. They denied that the rupture had-re-curred, and therefore denied further liability. Mr. P. J. O'Repan appeared for plaintiff, .and Mr. T. Neave for defendants. There was conflict of evidence of doctors called as to whether the rupturo iiad recurred, and His Honour adjourned tho case in order that he might submit this question for determination by a medical referee.

AN INJURED FOOT. Thomas Elliott, a middle-aged seafaring man and waterside worker, was injured on the wharf while loading flax on to the New Zealand Shipping Company's s.s. Knilcoura on November 19, 1915. A halo of flax fell on his right foot. Elliott claimed from the Shipping Company in respect of this injury alleging that he was unfit to follow his usual employment. He had been paid half wages, £1 lis. 2d. per week, from the time of his accident down Eo May 28. .1916. He claimed that payment at this rate should be continued for the 'period of total incapacity, and that ho should receive other compensation either by lump sum or weekly payment for partial disablement. _ The defence was a denial that plaintiff was unable to- do his usual work, and in tho alternative a statement that if his recovery had not been complete plaintiff had_ by his habits impeded or prevented his recovery. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M. Myers for the defendant company. ' After hearing tho evidence of four medical men, 'His Honour said that in his opinion plaintiff was not entitled to any compensation more than ho had already received.