MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 114, 7 February 1919, Page 8

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

WATERSIDE WORKER'S CLAIM

ACCIDENT IN A STEAMER'S

VENTILATOR

A claim for compensation for injuries received by u waterside worker whilst coaling the steamer Ulimnroa.wns heard before Mr. .W. G. Kiddcll, S.M., nt the Jlagistratc's Coutt, yesterday, when Victor Owler'sued .the Hnddnrt-l'arker Company, »hipowm;.-.->. for the aum ot J»i ]od. .a Mr. P. J. O'ilcpn appeared lor tlio plaintiiT, njid Jtv. A.W.ifluir for the dclendant. In tho stale-incut of sinim it was sec forth that the-plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant company on leuruiiry, 1018, nncf was engaged as a coal trimmer on the stomner blinioroti, w/ucu was being coaled from .the hulk Blackball. In order to get into the bunkerhold it was necessnry to go through one of the ventilators, and while he was descending this ventilator ho was struck on the head and shoulders by a mass or lump of coal, <is a result of which he sustained certain injuries which prevented him from undertaking any work until October 8, 1918. During the period ot his idleness he received certain moneys under the Workers' Compensation Act, amounting to .£2O 12s. (id.-beiug nine weeks' compensation at tlio rate ot £Z as. per week. At tho lima of the accident the Ulimaroa was receiving coal, and this was conveyed to the steamer from the hulk by a trolly travelling on it temporarily-raised tramway. 'J. ho coal which struck plaintiff fell from the trolly, and it was alleged that the ventilator should have been guarded to prevent objects of any kind entering it. j Tho ventilator wag left unguarded, and; as a result' the accident happened, and | plaintiff alleged that the injury ho sustnined was diroctlv due to negligence of | the defendant company by its foreman or agent. Plaintiff also alleged that the trolly was excessi\ely loaded, or the basket containing the coal was improperly placed on the trolly. The average weekly earnings of the plaintiff were not less than £1 11s. Bd., and he claimed by way of compensation eleven weeks' wages at £i 11s. Bd. per week, less the £W 12s. Gd. already paid under the Workers; Compensation Act), d1!29 10s. 10(1., hospital expenses M is., and general damages «£SO: a total of i'Blo3.lod. . Evidence was called for the plamtiti to show that plaintiff was not the last man down the ventilator, and that it was not the practice for the last man down !to c'ose the ventilator. This, it was considered, was impossible to do, as both hf.nds w;:re needed to go down tho steps. I .For the defence it was admttiea that i plaintiff was entitled to compensation, 'and this had been paid, but it was submitted that ho was not entitled to 'samngos. Tlio plaintiff was responsible for tho accident and the injury to lumself. He was the last mati <io\vr. tho ventilator, and he eiicn'.ti have placed tht grating on after he entered .the ventilator. It' was not the r,; : aetii:e to have a speoi-aily-engaged man to guard the ventila, tor. Counsel contend that'_ it would have been quite easy for plaintiff to have placed the grating over the ventilator as ho entered it. Plaintiff had not proved negligence on the part of the coffliwnj'— the company was not respoDsiole for placing tho grating over the ventilator, further, plaintiff was late for work, and took tho risk of going down the ventilator whilst thn coaling was going on overhead.

After heaving witnesses called for the defence, His worship reserved judgment. BUILDING DISPUTE. Judgment was delivered by 31 r. W. I G. .Hiddell. S.M., in the case in which Thomas W. Ward, contracted and builder, preceded against William 11. Slnttery for payment , .'of jC9S ( Js. tid. arising out of a dispute over the, erection of a house. The defendant counter-pl.vimed for.a sum of .£lB3 10s., for material supplied. The matter was referred to Mr. G. I'rost, as arbitrator, mid lie deckled ! .fhat plaintiff was entitled to .£BO 195., I with costs amounting to .£(! is., on the claim, and on the counter-claim ruled that defendant was entitled to 10s., with cosls A' 3 Bs. His "Worship directed that encli party should pay its own witnesses' and solicitor's fees.

Sir Kenneth Douglas appeared for tlio plaintiff and Mr. H. J'\ O'Leary represented the defendant. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. Judgment by -default for plaintiff was Kiveii by Air. W. G. Jliddeil, S.M., in the following undefended coses:—Lazarus Wolfe Halkind v. Ellen O'Leary, X 7 55.. costs £\ 33. Gd.r "Wellington Gas Co., Ltd., v. Mrs. M. Todd, X 5 ; ls. 3d., costs M 3s. (id.; John Keck ii'inlay '(as administrator for Helen I'inlny, deceased) v. I' , . W. Meyer, aMIi (Is. pel., costs .£3 Bs. POLICE CASES. Before Mr. ¥. V. Frazer, S.M., Edward Moran was fined .£5, in default one month's imprisonment, Jor committing a. nuisance in Kent Terrace. Seven days was allowed in which to pay the line. A young woman named Elsie Murphy appeared on remand to answer charges of lining an idle and disorderly person with insuiticient means of support, and with assaulting the police matron. Having read reports as to the circumstances of tho accused, His Worship entered a conviction on eacli charge, and ordered her to come up for sentence when called upon within six mouths, on condition that she remained with the Salvation Army authorities until she was provided with' suitable work. For u third breach of his prohibition order KoLert Collier was fined J!3, in default fourteen days in gaol. For drunkenness lie was formally convicted. A fine of M was imposed on Joeeph Scott, who confessed to a breach of his prohibition order; for drunkenness he was convicted and discharged. Two first offenders, charged with drunkenness, were convicted and fined 10s. each, and two others wore fined sa. each.