THE OMAKA DISASTER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 201, 20 May 1921, Page 5

THE OMAKA DISASTER

TWO CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION DID DECEASED OFFICERS DO V MANUAL LABOUR”? Two claims for compensation arising out of the wreck of the auxiliary schooner Omaka, off Pencarrow, on January 30 last, with tho loss of all hands, were heard by the Court of Arbitration yesterday before His Honour Mr. Justice Frazer and Messrs. W. Scott (employers’ representative) and J. H. M'Cullough (employees’ representative). The cases were of a similar nature. In the first Clara Maria Katrina Weekes sued Charles Alexander Eckford and George Sugden Eckford for compensation for the loss of her husband, John ■Terrell Weekes, engineer on the Omaka. The statement of claim set out that the plaintiff and her child were totally dependent on the deceased. The defendants contended that tho deceased was employed otherwise than at manual labour, at a remuneration exceding jC26O per annum, and that the dependants were therefore not entitled to the benefits of the Act of 1908. ,

A further claim was brought by the wife of Captain Purvis for compensation, and to this the defendants replied that the deceased was not employed at manual labour, and that, therefore, his widow was not entitled to compensation under the Act. Air. P. J. O’Rogan appeared for Airs. Weekes, and Mr. Kirkcaldie for Airs. Purvis. Air. H. E. Evans appeared for the defendants. A Captain’s Work. The first two cases were taken together. In the case of Airs. Purvis, Mr. Kirkcaldie said that the deceased was master of the wrecked vessel, and was drowned when she was lost. The facts were admitted, and it was clear that the plaintiff’s husband had been drowned while performing his duty. It had been bold in certain leading cases that under similar conditions compensation should be allowed. Counsel contended that the manual labour done by a ship’s master was quite essential, for example, the manning of a wheel, the working of halyards in the absence of a watch, and

sundry other jobs. It was necessary always for a captain holding a position to that occupied by the deceased to perform some sort of manual labour. At this stage Air. O’Regan opened the case for Airs. Weekes. Counsel contended that Weekes, in addition to his ordinary duty as engineer, engaged in repair work, which was bona fide manual labour, and in addition had on occasions to bring machinery ashore, and to carry benzine cases from where they ' were stacked on the vessel to the oil tank, about 25 feet away, open the cases, open the tins, and empty the contents into the tank. Evidence would show that Weekes had often helped the crew to set sail, having been given specific orders to do so. Edna Blanche Purvis, widow of Captain Purvis, said that she had two children, and had been totally dependent on her husband for support. The state of her husband’s hands showed that lie had been doing manual work, which he had not done while in the employ of other shipping companies. A little daughter of the witness gave evidence of having accompanied filer father on a trip, and of having seen him at the wheel and "helping” to put up the foresail. Her father also threw the ropes ashore to tie up when at Blenheim. John Knox, an ex-captain of the Omaka, gave evidence as to the manual labour required. Witness had “kept watches” in company with a sailor. Weekes, also said > the witness, did manual labour ocasionally. ‘ “Lending a Hand.” Further evidence was given by George B. Corby, master mariner, who said his experience was that captains on small coastal steamers helped the crew in cases where its personnel was small.

Oscar Berkland, seaman, said that Captain Purvis had consistently “lent a hand” in tho manual work required to run the ship. The clothes her husband worked in, said Clara Weokes, widow of the deceased engineer, were always oily and dirty, which was indicative of hard and dirty work. Evidence to the same effect was given by Terrell John Weekes, son of the deceased. Addressing the Court, Mr. Evans said that the defendants did not yet know their liabilities. They wished to satisfy the claims under this Workers’ Compensation Act. but it would mean considerable hardship. Counsel contended that any manual labour done by Captain Purvis was merely accidental. The two officers. Purvis and AVecke-s, wore insured. Purvis, said counsel, was in receipt of more than .£4OO a year—more

than the limit laid down by the Workers’ Compensation Act. The captain admittedly had taken the wheel when it was necessary to do so, in order to allow an able seaman to engage in other work. As far as We*kes was concerned, it was submitted that the manual work done by the late engineer was incidental to his employment. One of the defendants, Charles Alexander Eckford, said, giving evidence, that Captain Purvis had no duties other than to act as master of the ship. Also, once the engine was started, the engineer would not have to do any work on it. Only skill was required. AVoekes was a second-class oil engineer. The crew naturally would work under the orders of tine officers. Cross-examined, witness said he did not regard the cleaning of tbe engine as essential. Weokes was not obliged to assist in taking the sail, and if he did so, tbe act was one of pure "good nature.” He would not have been obliged to help in loading or unloading.

Captain A. C. Smith, master mariner in charge of the shore staff of the defendants at Blenheim, and former master of the.Omaka, said that the captain was always nt the wheel going up and down the AVairau River. This was necessary on account of the mud banks. Work at the wheel was not especially hard work.

Captain E. Joha.nsen said that he had never seen the late engineer helping to discharge cargo. The Court reserved its decision.