ARBITRATION COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1740, 4 May 1906, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT.

Before Mr Justios Chapman aod Messrs

Brown and Slalor)

The Court reiumed its sittings,at 10 yesterday morning. An amendment of hours asked fur by Mr G. Darton pa acoouot cf the Painters’ Union wos agreed to, the effeot being that tbe starting hour will be alt.-rad from 8 a.m. to 7.45 a.m., three-quarters of ao hour for diooer, aod knock off work at 5 p.m. oh week days, and 1215 p.m. on Saturdays. Io regard to the application made by the Auokland Saddlers’ Union, called on yesterday, Mr W. Hawkins, their represantalive, who had ooly arrived by tbe steamer that afiorooon, attended, and stated that the only objaotion was in rela lion to the statutory half-holiday ; that both employers and employers were agreeable to Thursday instead of Saturday, and his Honor said ttero would be no difficulty in adjusting the matter. A settlement was effaoted out of Court in regard to the Wairoa case, Annie Marie Larsan v. J. J. Parker and W. J. Ball, claim of £312 on tho death of Mrs Larsen’s husband, who was drowned. (Mr Stuck for claimant, and Mr Nolan for eiponiaut),

• '>N INTERESTING CLAIM. A oaSft- in x wh'oh considerable interest was Cak-lii. ..was that of John Toomas Glover C, Neill. Mr Stock appeared and Mr Fmn fur respondent. ‘ J was no material dispute as to the faots. Mr G;over had been employed as a draper’s assistant by Miss -Neill in her drapery business. Beiog haady with tools he had doae several bits of carpentering without being asked, though without being checked for doing so. On October 14th ho was removing a wooden measure from the couutar with a cold chi.-el when a splinter from the measure flew up and penetrated his eye, the result being that he had practically lost the use of his right eye. He had been in the Gilborne Hospital soma days and at the Waipukarau Hospital for eleven weeks. During that time he had received four aunn amounting to £4 123 from respon dent, but they were sent oul of sympathy to tin young man, any liab.lity being denied. The evidence of Drs Colo and Morrison was conclusive a 3 to the injury dons, and it was admitted that complainant was in Miss Neill’s employ at the time of the painful mishap, but it was contended that his employment was simply that of draper’s assistant, and that in removing the mßasura without authority he was ohargeable ■ with wilful misoonduot—if it was neeossary to remove it it should have been unscrewed and not a chisel used. It was further shown that olaimant was io a bettor position than before in regard Co wages, receiving £2 a week, or 10s more than when in respondent’s employ. Mr Stock, in replying, stated that it was necessary in the interests of his employer for the measure to be removed, and that respondent herself must have heard the noise and not interfered when the mesaure was being removed. The fact that claimant was now earning more should not weigh, ai he might in future wish to take up some occupation ia which the use of two eyes was necessary, and ihe injury would seriously handicap him io life Judgment wa3 reserved, His Honor intimating that it would probably b 9 made knjwn within a few days.