A MINER’S INJURY

Evening Star, Issue 19788, 11 February 1928, Page 2

A MINER’S INJURY

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION Further hearing was given yesterday afternoon in tbe Arbitration Court to the case involving the for compensation put forward by a Kaitangata miner, Alexander Forrest (Mr W. G. Hay), against tho proprietors of tho Taratn Coal Alines (Al, J. B. Callnn). In taking up the case for the defence Air Callan stated that he did not propose to call evidence. He made no admissions in the case at all, so that any issue raised by the pleadings remained raised. He intended to confine his remarks to two broad aspects —(1) that tho evidence was insufficient to entitle an interference to be safely drawn connecting the condition of _ tho plaintiff with the occurrence described by him, and (2) that in any event the plaintiff was barred by the delay that had taken place. There were other matters outside that, and lie did not abandon them, but he did not propose to touch on them when he addressed tho court. Mr Hay said it was pretty clear that an accident occurred about April, 1926, and the question was whether that accident caused the present state of affairs. He contended that the medical evidence was sufficient to prove the claim in regard to tho loss of sight. Mr Hay also contended that the delay in bringing the action _ was justified because of the lapse of time before the plaintiff realised the full extent of the injury, and because of the difficulty in locating Burleigh, who had left 'Kaitangata, and could not be traced for some time. Air Callan said he still submitted that, the evidence was insufficient to enable the inference to he safely drawn that there was a connection between the present state of the _ plaintiff’s sight and the cause to which he attributed it. Tho medical evidence showed that it was doubtful if a detachment of the ■ retina, could be ascribed to any particular occurrence. No one had been produced who could say that the plaintiff had experienced any trouble with his sight during the months immediately following the occurrence, and it. was a serious thing to draw an inference on the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff. Tho speaker proceeded to argue that there was no justification for a delay. He said that long before the plaintiff sought medical advice tho condition of his sight should have driven him to protect his .legal rights. The case was held up until Burleigh was located, hut the speaker argued that rio adequate effort bad been made to ascertain where Burleigh was. The court reserved its decision*