COMPENSATION ACT.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 July 1918, Page 4

COMPENSATION ACT.

INTERESTING JUDGMENT GIVEN

WI I.!.]NGTON July I

The reserved judgment of the Court of Arbitration in the ease «i Knight v. George 11. Seales Ltd., has been filed with the Clerk of Awards at “Wellington. The care was heard on Thursday, June 20th } Mr P. O’Regan appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr W. A. Blair for the defendant company.

The deceased. Wil'imn Kingsley Knight, aged nineteen. was lost overboard from the barque Ilona, then on the way from Ran Francisco to Dunedin, about twenty miles off Hank s Peninsula, in January last. He bad been apprenticed about live months previously, the terms being that he was to be naid Is. per month, for the first six months; JOs. per month tor the second ; for the second year JOs. per month; and for the third year 70s per month.

"The father of the deceased, James

;Knight (oarpenTor aiul builder, of Hamilton) claimed compensation on behalf of himself and his wile, alleging that they were both partial dependents on the contributions of deceased within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act. Both parents gave evidence to the effect that deceased had been earning since the age of thirteen, and that be' gave nil bis earnings to bis parents. \t the nee of fourteen lie was employed on a dairy farm at 275. per week, during which time he boarded at homo, but, handed ail his earnings to bis mother. Tie was seized with a strong desire to go to sea; and, a year before his death, ho left home, and joined the s.s., To Anau, earning £7 per month and keep. Tlis father induced him to return home, and he again handed ovei all his earnings. Tie then worked for | six months for his latuer as a btiikloi slabourer, in which capacity he “did the work of a man.'' His father had insured the life of deceased; but, when lie insisted on going to sea, the policy was surrendered, and the money applied in providing an outfit- for him. According to the definition of the term in the statute, a partial dependent “must have been partially dependent at the time of the accident causing

( |,n death.” Counsel maintained, however, tlmt there was ample* autlior{itv for the proposition that pari tial dependency could he inferred where payments, in fact, had been made and there was a reasonable probability of their being resumed, and that the legal position was unaffected by occasional interruptions. Mr Blair, on the other hand, contended that, a I thouid i tji* court- was entitled to consider the possibilities of future payments, yet there must in fact have been partial dependency at or about- the date ol Ihe accident- causing death. In the course of a somewhat lengthy judgment reviewing the tacts of the ease, the court, held that the parents were partial dependents within the meaning of the Act. ]n order to give effect- to the purport of the statute, the defining words must not be construed 100 strictly. The court quoted with approval a case decided by the hnglish Court of Appeal u herein the Master of Bolls said : “We should be whittling away the Aft were we to say that where the money payments have been made as here, and where the workman is out of employment or out of full employment for a short time there was no dependency.’' There was no logical distinction between sucb a case and the present, where the employment was for a time unremunerative. Judgment would be given for the sum of £l5O with costs £7/7/-, with witnesses’ expenses and disbursements to be fixed by the clerk of Awards.