GREY DISTRICT COURT.
Fbiday, August 16th,
(Before His Honor Judge Ward.) William Walton v, Dispatch Foundry Company.—Claim for £175 for injury retired while in the employ of defendant Company. Mr Hannan appeared for plaintiff and Messrs Beare and Kitchingham for defendants. Mr Hannan, in his opening address, stated that the chief basis of action were; —(1) 'The tools were not fit for the work. (2) Plaintiff’s position was dangerous. (3) Negligence on the part of F. Copley, whose orders plaintiff was bound to obey. The statement of defence was practically a general denial. It also urged the accident was due to the negligence of plaintiff. W. Walton, called, stated that he was formerly a striker in the employ of the Dispatch Foundry Company. On the 3rd of December he was working with F. Copley and M. Shannon. 'On the day in question, witness was engaged plate turning. Copley was in charge. Shannon and himself were strickers and Copley held the plate on the slab. Shannon and Copley were standing on the opposite side of the slab. There was no room for him to move the fires, anvile and partially constructed dredge buckets being in the way. The iron that fell was red not, and was put on the slab and turned over. Copley handed witness over the “ dog ” which was holding the Slate. When witness got hold of it, opley said “ Have you got it.” Shannon then made a blow and the plate turned round and came down on witness's toe. He had two bruises on his arm through the accident. Only saw four “ dogs”’ and two broken ones when he went there. The “dogs” were bent according to the class of work. The iron fell on the right foot. Don’t remember any thing after the accident till ha was home. Was about six weeks under the doctor. Fortnight afterwards did a shift on wharf but had to stop. Went about three weeks afterwards. Worked occasional shifts on wharf. Only averaged •bout 35/- per week. Am still ■ slightly lame. >
By Mr. Beare—Mason stopped me 1 once. Had constant work for nearly three months. Went back to workshop about a month after accident, Saw Copely and Shannon. Asked them how it Happened, said it was his fault. Never said it was my fault. Might have said that was my fault for going to work there. Went to Mr. vopmy’s house about three months afterawards. Had short conversation with him. Told him he was taking it into Court. Asked Copely if it was his fault, but the latter said he would tell nothing about it. Witness said he had put it in toe hands of a lawyer. Told him that toe lawyer asid that if it was witness’s fault it was HO use going any further with it. Never asked Copely to swear in Court that the dog broke. Don't remember saying: “Leave go; I can manage it myself.” Was in the employ of the Foundry for about four months at toe same work all the time, and using the same dogs. Complained to Copely every day in the seek about the scarcity of tools; also to Ir. Hamilton.^
By. Mr. Hannan —Hamilton nearly took bis head oft when he asked for more r-. tOOIS.
F. M’Brearfcy, duly qualified practloner, said he was called to attend last witness at the Foundry. Dressed his wounds. He was unconscious till he was removed home, where the witness further dressed the wound. Nearly lost some of his toes. The wound would be very painful at first. He will feel pain for a couple of years. He will also be lame, during that period. Defendants had paid witness’s fee. By Mr. Beare—The wounds would interfere with his work. J. Tanner, sawmiller, was some time So employed by the Dispatch Foundry, e had done work on dredge buckets. There were not enough tools when he was there. The foreman had to make some “dogs.” They used to put the “dogs" in the fire to alter the sizes. Bad done it many a time. As they were used the dogs gradually opened out again. Often complained about the scarcity of tools to Mr. Hambleton. Two or three tongs were very fair. Often had to ask for tools.
By Mr. Beare—Never had any conversation about the case with plaintiff. He came to me. Got the “ sack ” one afternoon when he was in a hurry. That’s nothing uuusual up there. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. (LEFT siITINO.)
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19010816.2.9
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 16 August 1901, Page 3
Word count
Tapeke kupu
749GREY DISTRICT COURT. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 16 August 1901, Page 3
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.