QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY

Evening Star, Issue 19658, 10 September 1927, Page 2

QUESTION OF DEPENDENCY

UNUSUAL COMPENSATION CASE [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September -9. Last Christmas Day, at the close ol his work, Thomas Patterson, a railway ganger, was thrown from a van which was taking him to his home, and killed. The accident occurred between Omoto and Grcymeuth, and admittedly. arose in the course of his employment. Today his widow, Margaret Patterson, proceeded against the Crown for compensation, and said that she was totally dependent upon him. The case came before Arbitration Court. While Patterson’s death and the fact that he had been in the employ of the Kailwav Department were admitted by the defence, it had not been admitted that she was the widow of the deceased man. A niece and a son of the claimant gave evidence of the marriage certilicate, and His Honor then announced that the court was satisfied as to the marriage. The case for the Crown was that tho claimant had loft her husband some months before he left Petonc for Nelson, whence he proceeded to the West Coast. She had been living in Petone with a man named Haywood. The relations between Mrs Patterson and Haywood were nothing to do with the case, but there was not total dependency on the deceased. Evidence was given that the title of the property at Petone was registered in the names of Mrs Patterson and of Harold William Haywood as tenants in common in equal shares. The consideration was £1,050, and there was outstanding on a State advances mortgage £358 16s 4 cl. Evidence was given for the defence by a railway ganger that Patterson had told him that his wife had gone away with another man, and had asked witness to come to live with him. Not only had Patterson’s wife gone, but she had taken the furniture. Mrs Patterson, in the box, said she had left her husband because of his drunken habits and ill-treatment of her. She received £1 a week and keep from Haywood for acting as his housekeeper,' and her husband had sent her £2 each fortnight. The money invested in the house was money which she had saved. The question came down to one of dependency, said .His Honor. Mrs Patterson appeared to have been quite justified in leaving her husband, 1 but she was not totally dependent on him. She might have taken him back had he stepped drinking, but, unfortunately, he had not. One could only assume that Patterson’s payments for his sou were actually for the wife, and she was entitled to compensation. Patterson was a man of sixty years, and his working life would probably not have been more, than five years. The court allowed this period, or £250. The court was also satisfied as to the bona fide relationship between Mrs Patterson and Haywood. Their relationship was beyond question.