COMPENSATION CLAIM
'A QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY.
A claim under tlija "Workers Compensation Act was preferred in the Arbitration Court yesterday by Miss Rose Phoebe Marsh, of Feilding, against Eoy Barton, of Bank View, Te "ffharau, Masterton, sheepfarmer. The action arose out of the death of the plaintiff'"; father while in the employ of. tho defendant.
Mr. P..L. Hollings, of Masterton, ap. wared tor the claimant, and Mr. A. iw. Blair for the defendant.
The statement of claim set out that on and prior to March 16, 1917, the defendant employed one John Marsh (father of the plaintiff) as a shepherd en his property at Bank View. While thus employed Marsh met with an accident which 'caused his death. 'This was on May 16, 1917. Plaintiff was partially dependent upon the deceased (her father) for her support, and she therefore claimed tho sum of £200 compensation for injuries sustained through the death of her father, and a sum cov-
ering funeral and other expenses incurred at tho time of the accident.
In the statement of defence it was denied that the plaintiff was a dependant on the deceased; also that the plaintiff incurred any medical or funeral expenses. , It was alleged that on July 30, 1917, a request was made by the defendant for particulars of these, but this was ignored. _ The defendant was thus thwarted in his desire to settle these expenses'/- The defence also contendod that the action could not come within tho purview of the Court, as it was not commenced within six months after the death of the deceased.
The Court intimated that in the circumstances it would not striko out the claim on account of the time limit. The question of delay, howevci, was quite pertinent witli regard to the genuineness of the claim.
At the outset, Mr. floilings said that there was a good reason why the action was not commenced within the specified tjme. After tho death of plaintiff's father, plaintiff's brother instructed a solicitor at Masterton to take whatever action was necessary to secure compensation for his sister. This solicitor was, unknown to the plaintiff, called up unexpectedly under the military service ballot, and in consequence he was unable to present the claim. There was no delay after the plaintiff learnt these facts.
In the course of her evidence, the plaintiff, who gave her age as 25 years, said that she was the youngest of tliree children.» The other two children were not depondant on the do'■eased for support, and, accordingly, made no claim on the defendant. For tho last seven years she had earned from 15s. to 255. a week and hor "keep." She received no special sums from her father, but she could get anything within reason she asked for. Turing the year preceding his death she received £38 from her rather. She had intended to take a probationer's course in a public hospital, but on account of the death of her father she had had, by reason of the cessation of his support, to' abandon (this plan. _ James Marsh, a brotheif of the plaintiff, gave evidence regarding the dependency of the plaintiff on the deceased.
The defence called no evidence, and in addressing the Court, Mr. Blair submitted that the case ror the plaintiff must fail as the latter had failed to establish any. dependency on the deceased. .Tlie plaintiff was young and able-bodied. The deceased was an old man of simple tastes, and the probabilities were that when he had had 'money to spare he gave it to his favourite daughter (the plaintiff). It was given ac irregular intervals, and in irregular amounts, and it was really a gift, and did not constitute dopendency nt all. In intimating that the Court would reserve its decision, Mr. Justice Stringer said that the evidence- was very vague and unsatisfactory. As to the funeral expenses, plaintiff herself was not responsible for these, and in any case the defendant was perfectly willing to pay these.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19180305.2.51
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 142, 5 March 1918, Page 7
Word count
Tapeke kupu
662COMPENSATION CLAIM Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 142, 5 March 1918, Page 7
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.