ARBITRATION COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 243, 2 July 1918, Page 8

ARBITRATION COURT

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. The Arbitration Court delivered reserved judgment in a compensation claim which is of general interest. The plaintiff in the case, which was heard on June 20, was .Tames Knight, builder and carpenter, of Hamilton, who sought compensation as a partial dependant from u. H. Scales Ltd., on account of the death by drowning of his son "William Kingsley Knight. When the case was heard last week the evidence showed that tho son, at the timo of his death, was an apprentice on a. ship owned by '.he defendants, his wage being a nominal one. He went to sea with the consent of his parents, but prior to doing 60 he had earned wages working on farms, etc., and this lie had always given to his parents. By reason or the articles of nis apprenticeship ho had for somo months been unable to contribute anything to the family support, nnd the point at issue was whether "at the time fli the accident, which caused his death," tho plaintiff was u partial dependant.

In the judgment it was pointed nut that it had been held in England that the words quoted must not bo construed too strictly. Reference was made to tlio case of a contributor who might be laid aside through illness, and tho ease, say, of a hoy wlio ran away from home and had not for a period of years contributed anything to the support of his parents. In the caso in question, tho Court. Waving heard tho circumstances, was of the opinion the son intended In again contribute when he was in a position to do so, as he should have been before long had he lived. The mere cessation of payments did not in the opinion of tho Court destroy the dependency of the plaintiff which had already existed. A decision of the English Court of Appeal was quoted, in which it was declared by I lie Master of the Rolls: "\\'n should be whittling away tho Act were we to bh.v thai where money payments have been made, as here, and where the workman is out of employment or out of full' employment for a short time, there was 110 dependency." There could bo no logical distinction between being out of employment and being in employment temporarily iinremuncrativr.

Tlio Court, therefore, held that at the lituo of the death of the son plaintiff was a particl dependant, and entitled to compensation. 1 Judgment was given for .fcl.iO, -,v;ih .£7 7s. costs. At: tho hearing Mr. P. ,1. O'Hegan appeared for the plaintitf, liiid Mr. A. W. Blair for Scales hiM CO.. I'.W